Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Ostronomos]

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

These are the words of someone who bases all of their biased conclusions on their logical shortcomings, and then surrenders in defeat. I am privy to the knowledge that there is indeed a God. So you can imagine my disappointment when I hear that an agnostic atheist surrenders in defeat and declares no God, not even the correct deistic kind that only interferes when mind connection or spiritual connection becomes a factor at play in reaching the correct conclusion about God's existence.

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

The only constraint is the physical body as opposed to the unconstrained spirit we all possess. Just because you live under the delusion of no God does not mean I am obligated to share your belief. In fact, it is I who is well-aware that God is real.

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.

Fair enough. I never said my logic was infallible. But then again I am the only one on these forums who is capable of maximizing his intelligence to ultimate levels for brief minutes at a time.

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.

Congratulations. You've reduced human life to a worthless pile of ****. Another false belief.

 

[Polymath257]

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

This seems quite likely to be false.

First, the phrase 'metaphysical explanation' mistakes how metaphysics can and does work. It *cannot* actually explain anything because it is fundamentally untestable. At best, it gives a framework from which we can get explanations by making observations and testable hypotheses.

I would also point out that the notion of physical laws gives a different way to approach the metaphysics here: instead of being directed to 'finality', the physical laws simply note that things have properties and that affects how they can interact. This is why cause-effect relationships exist at all.

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

I have no idea what 'in real being' adds to this claim. In actuality, cause-effect relationships usually exist between things that already exist. For example, we see color because pre-existing light interacts with some pre-existing pigment which causes a change in the light which we perceive as color. MOST cause-effect relationships are of this form: some interaction changes one or both pre-existing objects. This seems to contradict this claim.

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

This seems to say that mental being is not the same as real being. Since I don't know what either means in this context, I can't say whether this is true or not.

But I would note that ideas are not, in and of themselves, causal entities: they need to be effectuated by some sort of physical manipulation. So, the ideas in our minds (as processes in our brains) need to activate the muscles to actually get anything done.

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

That doesn't follow. At most, it would say that every effect has an idea that precedes it. In no way does it say that all the ideas have to be in a single mind, let alone one that is a 'Supreme Intelligence'.

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

Well, I think we see the holes in this argument by now. Multiple different effects usually mean multiple different causes, so we would NOT expect all the causes to be preceded by a *single* prior cause. It is far, far more likely to have multiple such causes, right?

Source:

Private Site

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That just seems false to me. The heart beats because the cells it is made of naturally contract periodically. No intellect required.

 

[Ostronomos]

This seems quite likely to be false.

First, the phrase 'metaphysical explanation' mistakes how metaphysics can and does work. It *cannot* actually explain anything because it is fundamentally untestable. At best, it gives a framework from which we can get explanations by making observations and testable hypotheses.

Halleluyah. There may be hope for you yet.

Do not be so quick to dismiss the value of metaphysics as a potential framework from which science can benefit. It has lead to some of the most sublime and profound ideas in the history of science. Although few people are as stubborn as a mule to cling to the backward beliefs of materialism, I see you are broadening your mind. Let the mystics like Qui Jang Caine be your guide. For example, we see that there is more to science than materialism and the value of Hollywood portrayals of the supernatural and martial arts in their storytelling. Which even dates back to ancient civilizations.

Do not simply turn up your nose at the very mention of anything immaterial. Science is beginning to open up to these possibilities.

I would also point out that the notion of physical laws gives a different way to approach the metaphysics here: instead of being directed to 'finality', the physical laws simply note that things have properties and that affects how they can interact. This is why cause-effect relationships exist at all.

I have no idea what 'in real being' adds to this claim. In actuality, cause-effect relationships usually exist between things that already exist. For example, we see color because pre-existing light interacts with some pre-existing pigment which causes a change in the light which we perceive as color. MOST cause-effect relationships are of this form: some interaction changes one or both pre-existing objects. This seems to contradict this claim.

Your entire argument is based on the false premise of materialism. This is a final desperate attempt of an atheist to adamantly oppose all things immaterial.

You speak with an air of authority but it is not backed by anything substantial. Are you even aware that by denying God your attitude is bordering on evil?

I would have expected more from you.

This seems to say that mental being is not the same as real being. Since I don't know what either means in this context, I can't say whether this is true or not.

But I would note that ideas are not, in and of themselves, causal entities: they need to be effectuated by some sort of physical manipulation. So, the ideas in our minds (as processes in our brains) need to activate the muscles to actually get anything done.

That doesn't follow. At most, it would say that every effect has an idea that precedes it. In no way does it say that all the ideas have to be in a single mind, let alone one that is a 'Supreme Intelligence'.

Well, I think we see the holes in this argument by now. Multiple different effects usually mean multiple different causes, so we would NOT expect all the causes to be preceded by a *single* prior cause. It is far, far more likely to have multiple such causes, right?

 

[Polymath257]

Halleluyah. There may be hope for you yet.

Do not be so quick to dismiss the value of metaphysics as a potential framework from which science can benefit. It has lead to some of the most sublime and profound ideas in the history of science.

At most, it could be said to have entered into Bohr's ideas about quantum mechanics, but past that, I know of nothing that substantially affected science. In general, metaphysics and philosophy in general has been more of a hindrance to science than a benefit.

Although few people are as stubborn as a mule to cling to the backward beliefs of materialism, I see you are broadening your mind. Let the mystics like Qui Jang Caine be your guide. For example, we see that there is more to science than materialism and the value of Hollywood portrayals of the supernatural and martial arts in their storytelling. Which even dates back to ancient civilizations.

The value of Hollywood and its portrayals in science is negligible. Science is, ultimately, the use of the scientific method. it could apply to a supernatural *if* there was actually any observable evidence of such.

Do not simply turn up your nose at the very mention of anything immaterial. Science is beginning to open up to these possibilities.

Really? Like where? Provide a peer-reviewed journal article where science 'opens up to these possibilities'.

Your entire argument is based on the false premise of materialism. This is a final desperate attempt of an atheist to adamantly oppose all things immaterial.

No, materialism isn't the premise. it is the conclusion based on available evidence.

You speak with an air of authority but it is not backed by anything substantial. Are you even aware that by denying God your attitude is bordering on evil?

And *that* is one of the great sins of theism: the dictate that any disagreement in their assumption must be evil.

I would have expected more from you.

It is possible to be good without a belief in any deities. In fact, I often think that God-belief makes it harder to be truly good.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

and @TagliatelliMonster

Thank you. I hope you are doing well too.

Paley told a story about finding a watch lying on the ground and arriving at a conclusion that it was designed (by one ore more artificer). This conclusion is based on observing two features. First, it keeps time - it fulfills a purpose valuable to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch wouldn't keep time if its parts wouldn't be so precisely shaped, arranged... Then he compares this with the (even greater) works of nature.

The weakness of this argument is that functional complexity is only a probabilistic chance for a design. Paley said he could "hardly think" there is no designer. This is "God of the gaps" reasoning. With new scientific discoveries the most probable explanation can change. And it did change. Evolution theory showed that functional complexity can evolve without a designer.

The 5th Way is not probabilistic. If the argument is valid and sound the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. The opposite conclusion isn't just unlikely but it's conceptually impossible. Furthermore, it's a metaphysical demonstration. So natural science can't disprove it. It can be only disproven by finding a logical error or some other metaphysical explanation of cause and effect relation.

Evolution is just one more example that manifests final causality. The way a species is adapted to its environment... is just one more of many natural regularities. The 5th Way doesn't depend on complexity of eyeballs or any other examples of complex systems of many parts fulfilling some function with precise shape, arrangement... As E. Feser says, for the 5th Way argument an electron orbiting a nucleus would suffice.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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).

The Supreme intellect is not intrinsic in those objects but nevertheless they are inherently directed:

In each case, the causes don’t simply happen to result in certain effects, but are evidently and inherently directed toward certain specific effects as toward a “goal.” As we saw when we first looked at Aristotle’s notion of final causality, this doesn’t mean they are consciously trying to reach these goals; of course they are not. The Aristotelian idea is precisely that goal-directedness can and does exist in the natural world even apart from conscious awareness. Yet it is impossible for anything to be directed toward an end unless that end exists in an intellect which directs the thing in question toward it. And it follows, therefore, that the system of ends or final causes that make up the physical universe can only exist at all because there is a Supreme Intelligence or intellect outside that universe which directs things toward their ends. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

 

[Ostronomos]

At most, it could be said to have entered into Bohr's ideas about quantum mechanics, but past that, I know of nothing that substantially affected science. In general, metaphysics and philosophy in general has been more of a hindrance to science than a benefit.

What of the simulation hypothesis? Though small, it shook scientific materialism at its core.

The value of Hollywood and its portrayals in science is negligible. Science is, ultimately, the use of the scientific method. it could apply to a supernatural *if* there was actually any observable evidence of such.

The reason there is little *observable* evidence is because it involves stepping out of our ordinary 3 dimensional world.

Better yet, logic says that there is a supernatural dimension.

Really? Like where? Provide a peer-reviewed journal article where science 'opens up to these possibilities'.

Your Consciousness Can Connect With the Whole Universe, Groundbreaking New Research Suggests

This clue about where consciousness comes from supports a Nobel-Prize winner’s theory about how quantum physics works in your brain, known as Orch OR Theory.

www.aol.com

No, materialism isn't the premise. it is the conclusion based on available evidence.

And *that* is one of the great sins of theism: the dictate that any disagreement in their assumption must be evil.

I stand corrected.

One can argue that there is some overlap between denial of God despite evidence to the contrary and evil itself.

Anything false can be considered evil and atheism is false. Or at least it perpetuates lies and misinformation.

It is possible to be good without a belief in any deities. In fact, I often think that God-belief makes it harder to be truly good.

And yet it is the only fact worth considering.

 

[Ponder This]

That just seems false to me. The heart beats because the cells it is made of naturally contract periodically. No intellect required.

It seems that the heart beat is evidently and inherently directed towards certain specific effects as toward a goal, yes?
The argument is that this implies an intellect.

The Supreme intellect is not intrinsic in those objects but nevertheless they are inherently directed:

In each case, the causes don’t simply happen to result in certain effects, but are evidently and inherently directed toward certain specific effects as toward a “goal.” As we saw when we first looked at Aristotle’s notion of final causality, this doesn’t mean they are consciously trying to reach these goals; of course they are not. The Aristotelian idea is precisely that goal-directedness can and does exist in the natural world even apart from conscious awareness. Yet it is impossible for anything to be directed toward an end unless that end exists in an intellect which directs the thing in question toward it. And it follows, therefore, that the system of ends or final causes that make up the physical universe can only exist at all because there is a Supreme Intelligence or intellect outside that universe which directs things toward their ends. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

How does Aristotle know where the "Supreme Intelligence" is? How does he know it must be outside the universe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Paley told a story about finding a watch lying on the ground and arriving at a conclusion that it was designed (by one ore more artificer). This conclusion is based on observing two features. First, it keeps time - it fulfills a purpose valuable to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch wouldn't keep time if its parts wouldn't be so precisely shaped, arranged... Then he compares this with the (even greater) works of nature.

I'ld say that both reasons are insufficient to infer design / creation with intent.
The reason you can infer a watch is designed / created with intent, is... because we know what watches are. Because it bears all the hallmarks of design: screws, artificially manipulated materials, writings,...

Conversely, it bears no hallmarks of natural processes in its "design".
Let's say the watch is rusted. We would not infer that the watch was made like that. We would instantly understand that the rust was not part of the intentional design, but that exposure to the forces of nature did that.

That is how you distinguish a manufactured object from natural objects.
Not necessarily by what it "does" or is "used for".

The weakness of this argument is that functional complexity is only a probabilistic chance for a design. Paley said he could "hardly think" there is no designer. This is "God of the gaps" reasoning. With new scientific discoveries the most probable explanation can change. And it did change. Evolution theory showed that functional complexity can evolve without a designer.

Indeed.

The 5th Way is not probabilistic. If the argument is valid and sound the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. The opposite conclusion isn't just unlikely but it's conceptually impossible. Furthermore, it's a metaphysical demonstration. So natural science can't disprove it. It can be only disproven by finding a logical error or some other metaphysical explanation of cause and effect relation.

Evolution is just one more example that manifests final causality. The way a species is adapted to its environment... is just one more of many natural regularities. The 5th Way doesn't depend on complexity of eyeballs or any other examples of complex systems of many parts fulfilling some function with precise shape, arrangement... As E. Feser says, for the 5th Way argument an electron orbiting a nucleus would suffice.

Then it is just a bare assertion.
Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


As I said, if anything is going to exist, then those things are going to exist in some way.
And that way is going to have properties, which is going to determine how things are going to interact.
So if anything is going to exist, by whatever means or for whatever reason, then necessarily there is going to be a set "behavior" of those things, determined by the way in which they exist.

So essentially, it seems to me you are playing a game of "heads I win, tails you lose".
You are essentially asserting that if anything is going to exist in whatever way, a creator must always create it.
So this "proof", seems to be no more or less then an assumed conclusion.

 

[Ostronomos]

"Reality is not what science and you perceive it to be. Instead, it is what logic reveals."

That reality is a simulation is a difficult concept for many to grasp. However, since reality exists within reality, this tautological fact reveals that it is indeed a simulation. One in which matrices are nested within matrices.

As conscious beings we were created by reality in order for it to know itself. The universe is pretending to be individuals. It is only due to the ego, which alienates us, that we are under the delusion of atheism.

As I have written in another thread, reality generates itself through the generative dynamic of the SCSPL.

God is known to be essence within us all. According to Buddhists and their experience of spiritual enlightenment. But I divulge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Paley told a story about finding a watch lying on the ground and arriving at a conclusion that it was designed (by one ore more artificer). This conclusion is based on observing two features. First, it keeps time - it fulfills a purpose valuable to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch wouldn't keep time if its parts wouldn't be so precisely shaped, arranged... Then he compares this with the (even greater) works of nature.

The weakness of this argument is that functional complexity is only a probabilistic chance for a design. Paley said he could "hardly think" there is no designer. This is "God of the gaps" reasoning. With new scientific discoveries the most probable explanation can change. And it did change. Evolution theory showed that functional complexity can evolve without a designer.

The other problem with the watchmaker argument is that it relies on there being an undesigned background for the watch to stand out against. In the analogy, the watch stands out because it - according to Paley - has signs of design that the ground the watch is lying on does not.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

Care to justify, say, point #2?

First, the phrase 'metaphysical explanation' mistakes how metaphysics can and does work. It *cannot* actually explain anything because it is fundamentally untestable. At best, it gives a framework from which we can get explanations by making observations and testable hypotheses.

I would also point out that the notion of physical laws gives a different way to approach the metaphysics here: instead of being directed to 'finality', the physical laws simply note that things have properties and that affects how they can interact. This is why cause-effect relationships exist at all.

Metaphysics and empirical science have different fields of knowledge and methodology. Metaphysics describe reality that is more general and basic. That's why it is not tested (the way empirical science is) but it can be rationally evaluated or replaced with a better alternative metaphysical theory.

As noted before, empirical science must take many things for granted, such as the existence of patterns of cause and effect. Thus, while it might be able to establish whether some particular causal relationship exists, it cannot possibly establish whether causation as such is real or not, given that its method presupposes its existence. Nor, at the most general level and for the same reasons, can it tell us what causation per se is or what kinds of causation exist. And so on for notions like actuality, potentiality, substance, attribute, form, and so on. Empirical science of its very nature cannot give us the full story about these matters; but metaphysics just is the rational investigation of them. Hence metaphysics is obviously different from empirical science. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

​

Yes, things have certain properties. The principle of finality is just a metaphysical explanation of causation itself. It's just a starting point. Aristotelian appeal to inherent causal powers, forms, and final causes of various sorts is not intended to be the whole explanation by itself.

For example opium causes sleep when ingested (a famous example by Moliere). Saying “Opium causes sleep because it has a power to cause sleep” is true but it doesn't tell us much. To say “Opium causes sleep because the chemical structure of opium is such that, when ingested, sleep results” is also not much more informative.

Of course, the critic of Scholasticism is going to say, “But the reference to chemical structure isn’t supposed to be a complete explanation all by itself; it’s just a starting point, and detailed empirical investigation into the specific chemical properties of opium would be needed in order to give a fully satisfying explanation.” And that is perfectly true. But exactly the same thing is true of the Scholastic appeal to forms, powers, final causes, etc. Such appeals are not supposed to be the whole story. What they are intended to do, rather, is to point out that whatever the specific empirical details about opium turn out to be, the fundamental metaphysical reality is that these details are just the mechanism by which opium manifests the inherent powers it has qua opium, powers that a thing has to have if it is going to have any causal efficacy at all. This is perfectly consistent with, and indeed is (from an Aristotelian point of view) the only way properly to understand, the results of modern chemistry: The empirical chemical facts as now known are nothing other than a specification of the material cause underlying the formal and final causes that define the essence of opium. (same)​

​

 

[Polymath257]

It seems that the heart beat is evidently and inherently directed towards certain specific effects as toward a goal, yes?
The argument is that this implies an intellect.

No, there is no reason to think it is for a goal. Instead, it is an inheritance to prevent death prior to reproduction.

And it wouldn't imply an intelligence even if it *had* a goal in the present sense.

How does Aristotle know where the "Supreme Intelligence" is? How does he know it must be outside the universe?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'd say that both reasons are insufficient to infer design / creation with intent. The reason you can infer a watch is designed / created with intent, is... because we know what watches are. Because it bears all the hallmarks of design: screws, artificially manipulated materials, writings,...

Conversely, it bears no hallmarks of natural processes in its "design". Let's say the watch is rusted. We would not infer that the watch was made like that. We would instantly understand that the rust was not part of the intentional design, but that exposure to the forces of nature did that.

That is how you distinguish a manufactured object from natural objects. Not necessarily by what it "does" or is "used for".

When you say artificially manipulated materials, the watchmaker may not think in these terms, but he recognizes that one is inorganic and thus doesn't grow or even move except that it experiences an external force. He has traveled through a heath of grasses, shrubs, and bushes, passing them all by, but stops when he comes upon the watch, implying that he intuitively recognizes that this object is different from the rest.

I am privy to the knowledge that there is indeed a God

Sure you are.

Just because you live under the delusion of no God does not mean I am obligated to share your belief.

I wouldn't go there if I were you. You border on delusions of grandeur. You describe yourself as having special knowledge and being extremely intelligent, but your posting doesn't reflect that.

it is I who is well-aware that God is real.

I'd call that a delusion. You mistake your intuitions for knowledge.

Although few people are as stubborn as a mule to cling to the backward beliefs of materialism

Materialism with its spacetime separation, simultaneity, determinism and locality works at the scale of daily life as when playing billiards.

It's only on the scale of the very large/fast/massive and the very small that we require new rules.

These are the words of someone who bases all of their biased conclusions on their logical shortcomings

Yet your expressed beliefs are unfounded speculations. Believing them is a logical error, one called non sequitur.

And bias, which is a predisposition for or against a belief, is desirable if it's a rational bias. I have a bias against crossing the street without looking both ways and against drunk driving. Those are rational biases.

It's only irrational biases that are a problem. If you believe in a god without sufficient evidentiary support, which is an irrational bias, and you are wrong, you will have devoted quite a few scarce resources to that error, resources like time and money that could have been repurposed more profitably. It you believe certain genders, sexual orientations, races, or ethnicities are inferior, the world is a slightly worse place for both the bigot and the objects of his irrational biases.

and then surrenders in defeat

Escape from the world of soft thinking - or belief not tethered to empiricism - was liberating.

logic says that there is a supernatural dimension.

There is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore, the supernatural exists."

"Reality is not what science and you perceive it to be. Instead, it is what logic reveals."

The only aspects of reality that matter are those that we experience (perceive through the external and internal senses). Ideas about what lies outside of the conscious content (metaphysical constructs presumed to underlie the experience of consciousness and its content) are only valuable to the extent that they form a reliable mental map.

They don't need to be accurate. All that one need know is that he holds Belief B which drives Action A and is followed by some apprehension. If that apprehension is Desired Outcome D, and if that Belief B reliably leads to Desired Outcome D, then the idea can be called correct or knowledge or true without regard to the black box we call objective reality.

And I don't mean the objective reality of empiricism, which attempts to combine all perspectives, but beyond that to no perspective at all. Our individual realities are in here in the theater of our individual consciousnesses. If our models of what lies beyond work, they're keepers however inaccurate.

Consider an arcade racecar game. If we get caught up in the moment and forget where we are and what we're doing, it feels like driving a car, where turning the wheel makes the car turn by turning wheels on a street surface and the view through the windshield evolves accordingly. Never mind that the reality is just computer chips and that there is no movement of the car and indeed no car itself. It doesn't matter. If the model of driving an actual car works and facilitated Desired Outcome D - a high score on the game with a short time and no "wrecks" it can function successfully as our mental map.

 

[Ostronomos]

When you say artificially manipulated materials, the watchmaker may not think in these terms, but he recognizes that one is inorganic and thus doesn't grow or even move except that it experiences an external force. He has traveled through a heath of grasses, shrubs, and bushes, passing them all by, but stops when he comes upon the watch, implying that he intuitively recognizes that this object is different from the rest.

Sure you are.

I wouldn't go there if I were you. You border on delusions of grandeur. You describe yourself as having special knowledge and being extremely intelligent, but your posting doesn't reflect that.

I'd call that a delusion. You mistake your intuitions for knowledge.

Materialism with its spacetime separation, simultaneity, determinism and locality works at the scale of daily life as when playing billiards.

It's only on the scale of the very large/fast/massive and the very small that we require new rules.

Yet your expressed beliefs are unfounded speculations. Believing them is a logical error, one called non sequitur.

And bias, which is a predisposition for or against a belief, is desirable if it's a rational bias. I have a bias against crossing the street without looking both ways and against drunk driving. Those are rational biases.

It's only irrational biases that are a problem. If you believe in a god without sufficient evidentiary support, which is an irrational bias, and you are wrong, you will have devoted quite a few scarce resources to that error, resources like time and money that could have been repurposed more profitably. It you believe certain genders, sexual orientations, races, or ethnicities are inferior, the world is a slightly worse place for both the bigot and the objects of his irrational biases.

Escape from the world of soft thinking - or belief not tethered to empiricism - was liberating.

There is no sound argument that concludes, "therefore, the supernatural exists."

The only aspects of reality that matter are those that we experience (perceive through the external and internal senses). Ideas about what lies outside of the conscious content (metaphysical constructs presumed to underlie the experience of consciousness and its content) are only valuable to the extent that they form a reliable mental map.

They don't need to be accurate. All that one need know is that he holds Belief B which drives Action A and is followed by some apprehension. If that apprehension is Desired Outcome D, and if that Belief B reliably leads to Desired Outcome D, then the idea can be called correct or knowledge or true without regard to the black box we call objective reality.

And I don't mean the objective reality of empiricism, which attempts to combine all perspectives, but beyond that to no perspective at all. Our individual realities are in here in the theater of our individual consciousnesses. If our models of what lies beyond work, they're keepers however inaccurate.

Consider an arcade racecar game. If we get caught up in the moment and forget where we are and what we're doing, it feels like driving a car, where turning the wheel makes the car turn by turning wheels on a street surface and the view through the windshield evolves accordingly. Never mind that the reality is just computer chips and that there is no movement of the car and indeed no car itself. It doesn't matter. If the model of driving an actual car works and facilitated Desired Outcome D - a high score on the game with a short time and no "wrecks" it can function successfully as our mental map.

God and the supernatural have in fact been made into a new metaphysical science. So your statement that it is an irrational bias is in error. God, in fact, is very rational. You simply refuse to believe because it is a reactionary irrational bias on your part to the very same irrational biases that even the best of theists sometimes present.

The only recourse you have left me with is to say that if God and science converge at the highest levels of logic (and they do), then that would expose the irrational biases that all atheists once adhered to.

It is quite possible to prove the existence of a supernatural being as long as said supernatural being belongs within the Quantum construct that is the reality we all share. It is unimaginably difficult requiring a mental gymnastics of the highest kind to make originally arrived at statements such as "One X, Therefore One God" and then proceed to prove said statements. Whether or not it gains the approval of a worldwide audience is a different story altogether. But I assure you, God is a very rational belief, and probably the most sublime of rational beliefs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How does Aristotle know where the "Supreme Intelligence" is? How does he know it must be outside the universe?

It's part of his concept of divine or first principle - the detached and transcendent supreme intellect (cosmic nous contemplating itself), Unmoved Mover, Pure Actuality.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I have no idea what 'in real being' adds to this claim. In actuality, cause-effect relationships usually exist between things that already exist. For example, we see color because pre-existing light interacts with some pre-existing pigment which causes a change in the light which we perceive as color. MOST cause-effect relationships are of this form: some interaction changes one or both pre-existing objects. This seems to contradict this claim.

This seems to say that mental being is not the same as real being. Since I don't know what either means in this context, I can't say whether this is true or not.

But I would note that ideas are not, in and of themselves, causal entities: they need to be effectuated by some sort of physical manipulation. So, the ideas in our minds (as processes in our brains) need to activate the muscles to actually get anything done.

That doesn't follow. At most, it would say that every effect has an idea that precedes it. In no way does it say that all the ideas have to be in a single mind, let alone one that is a 'Supreme Intelligence'.

Well, I think we see the holes in this argument by now. Multiple different effects usually mean multiple different causes, so we would NOT expect all the causes to be preceded by a *single* prior cause. It is far, far more likely to have multiple such causes, right?

The author used the phrase "real being". It means actual existence.

We can conceive ideas in our mind and actualize them. This ideas exist in our mind before they exist as specific effects in reality. Things with no mind of their own but regulary producing (being directed to) specific effects require such ideas. To act this way they require a mind which is not their own.

Why a single mind? Because whatever orders things to their ends must also be the cause of those things and thus Pure Act or Being Itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I take issue with the idea of a thing "existing in the order of mental being."

Concepts are models of the things they represent. Concepts aren't the things themselves.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I take issue with the idea of a thing "existing in the order of mental being."

Concepts are models of the things they represent. Concepts aren't the things themselves.

For example an archer directs and shoot an arrow with a bow to hit a target (end). This end exists as an idea in the mind (as the author above said "in the order of mental being"). It is impossible for an arrow to be directed toward the target unless that end exists in an intellect.