Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PearlSeeker]

I think the most problematic part of the 5th Way is this:

"... and this being we call God."

 

[Ostronomos]

I think the most problematic part of the 5th Way is this:

"... and this being we call God."

It does not elicit anything other than an ambiguous mental image, hence its weakness. Although it may be grasping at straws, it makes a noble attempt at proving the existence of God.

But then again, words are mere symbols detached from reality. They can only go so far at conveying an image.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It does not elicit anything other than an ambiguous mental image, hence its weakness. Although it may be grasping at straws, it makes a noble attempt at proving the existence of God.

But then again, words are mere symbols detached from reality. They can only go so far at conveying an image.

The Supreme intellect is an abstract concept based on a rational argument. Biblical God is based mainly on faith and myth.

 

[Polymath257]

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

In other words, existence. In other words, something that exists.

We can conceive ideas in our mind and actualize them. This ideas exist in our mind before they exist as specific effects in reality.

The ideas exist in our minds. We then use our muscles to move things around to get something that is real and similar to what we imagined.

Things with no mind of their own but regulary producing (being directed to) specific effects require such ideas.

Why? So, for example, the sun has no mind of its own and regularly produced effects. Why would it need a separate mind to bring it into existence?

In fact, as far as we know, it came about with no mind intervening at all: it was simply the result of gravity acting on a cloud of gas. We can even see the process happening today in various nebula.

To act this way they require a mind which is not their own.

I think that is clearly false. Many things produce effects and have no minds associated with them.

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.

Hmmm....That doesn't seem to follow.

Human minds 'order things to their ends', but are not 'Being Itself'.

And, what in the world does 'Being Itself' even mean, other than 'existence'? Why capitalize the words? And why would that be the same as 'Pure Act' (whatever that could mean)?

It seems to me that you are jumping to conclusions that have no basis even in your own argument.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Nonsense. It is *common* for effects to occur with no intellect involved. Drawing a target around the place the arrow hits is not the same at all.

 

[Polymath257]

God and the supernatural have in fact been made into a new metaphysical science.

Really? Can you give a reference to a refereed journal for this?

For that matter, can you resolve the contradiction inherent in the phrase '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.

And I have seen nothing *but* irrationality from theists in their attempts to prove the existence of a deity.

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.

A lot of mumbo jumbo here. How would a supernatural 'belong' in the 'quantum construct' that is reality?

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.

Why should I believe you? You assure me, but I have seen you make any number of very doubtful claims. You haven't shown any great insights into even subjects you *claim* to have insights into. Your understanding of quantum theory seems quite weak, for example.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

The heart beats in a regular way and this cannot be due to chance, because then it would not behave with predictable results.
Do you disagree?

The heart beats because the cells it is made of naturally contract periodically.

You seem to agree. Your objection seems semantic.

No intellect required.

What is your objection to the notion that this implies an intellect?

I think the most problematic part of the 5th Way is this:

"... and this being we call God."

What is the problem with this part of the argument?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

You're just restating your claim, not actually making an argument for it.

... but this way you're restating it sounds unhinged.

I'm not sure if you've encountered this refutation to the idea that our concepts are actually the things they represent, but here it is: draw a bicycle. Close your eyes, imagine a bicycle, then open them and draw your concept of a bicycle on a piece of paper.

If the concept in your head is actually a bicycle, then you'll be able to draw a bicycle accurately and with enough detail that the thing would actually work: the wheels would spin and a rider could pedal, steer and brake.

OTOH, if the thing in your head is just a mental model of a bicycle as I'm suggesting, your drawing will have errors: stuff ranging from approximations that aren't quite right to huge fundamental flaws.

Are you willing to try this test?

 

[Ostronomos]

Really? Can you give a reference to a refereed journal for this?

Look up the Reality Self-Simulation Principle by Langan (2020). There are more, but I'll just provide you this reference for starters.

For that matter, can you resolve the contradiction inherent in the phrase 'metaphysical science'?

Where exactly or how exactly do we draw the line between science and metaphysics. Metaphysics like pureX said in another post, has reinforced an idea that has sustained billions around the world, if I may borrow his words.

And I have seen nothing *but* irrationality from theists in their attempts to prove the existence of a deity.

That is in actuality a failure on your part.

For example, if one considers that One X implies One God, then one may conclude that One X exists, Therefore One God exists.

No offence, but whereas you nonchalantly dismiss the logic of this statement due to your atheist agenda, great minds would agree with it (as they think alike).

A lot of mumbo jumbo here. How would a supernatural 'belong' in the 'quantum construct' that is reality?

Questions about the Quantum nature of reality continue to elude us. But I assure you, God is Quantum consciousness existing within every living being. It is only those who deny God, such as yourself, who continue to live in ignorance and squalor.

Why should I believe you? You assure me, but I have seen you make any number of very doubtful claims. You haven't shown any great insights into even subjects you *claim* to have insights into. Your understanding of quantum theory seems quite weak, for example.

Contrary to your claim, I recently provided the field of science and metaphysics with yet another great insight which you may have had the privilege of reading on these very forums. Look up "Conspansive hological processing and display".

Happy reading. And again, I mean no offence to you.

 

[Polymath257]

The heart beats in a regular way and this cannot be due to chance, because then it would not behave with predictable results.
Do you disagree?

No, it is not due to chance. it is due to the fact that all hearts that did not beat fairly regularly lead to organisms that died.

You seem to agree. Your objection seems semantic.


What is your objection to the notion that this implies an intellect?

Well, I don't see how it implies one. Can you give a detailed reason why organized behavior implies an intellect?

What is the problem with this part of the argument?

Well, it begs any number of questions. By assigning the word 'God', it carries a whole host of *other* meanings that may not be implied by your argument (even if the one is--which I think isn't the case).

 

[Polymath257]

Look up the Reality Self-Simulation Principle by Langan (2020). There are more, but I'll just provide you this reference for starters.

OK, I looked at it. Any actual evidence that this is remotely correct? As far as i can see, it is trivially wrong.

Where exactly or how exactly do we draw the line between science and metaphysics. Metaphysics like pureX said in another post, has reinforced an idea that has sustained billions around the world, if I may borrow his words.

People getting psychological benefit does not imply truth.

That is in actuality a failure on your part.

For example, if one considers that One X implies One God, then one may conclude that One X exists, Therefore One God exists.

Huh? What it 'One X' and why does it imply 'One God'? Please give details.

No offence, but whereas you nonchalantly dismiss the logic of this statement due to your atheist agenda, great minds would agree with it (as they think alike).

I dismiss it because it seems to be obviously wrong.

Questions about the Quantum nature of reality continue to elude us. But I assure you, God is Quantum consciousness existing within every living being. It is only those who deny God, such as yourself, who continue to live in ignorance and squalor.

Once again, you assure me. But why should I believe you? What good is your assurance if you are simply mistaken?

Contrary to your claim, I recently provided the field of science and metaphysics with yet another great insight which you may have had the privilege of reading on these very forums. Look up "Conspansive hological processing and display".

Happy reading. And again, I mean no offence to you.

Looks like just more of the CTMU nonsense.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why? So, for example, the sun has no mind of its own and regularly produced effects. Why would it need a separate mind to bring it into existence?

In fact, as far as we know, it came about with no mind intervening at all: it was simply the result of gravity acting on a cloud of gas. We can even see the process happening today in various nebula.

This exactly is the point. Cloud of gas collapses and forms a star. This happens with regularity. Cloud of gas is directed to form a star and a star is directed to shine etc. It's not one cause and one effect. It's a chain.

Human minds 'order things to their ends', but are not 'Being Itself'.

And, what in the world does 'Being Itself' even mean, other than 'existence'? Why capitalize the words? And why would that be the same as 'Pure Act' (whatever that could mean)?

Things in question were ordered things in nature, not what man ordered.

Being Itself and Pure Act is some philosophical terminology regarding Aquinas’s other proofs (ways) - the ultimate cause of: contingent things, change and so on. I brought them up because the question was: why one mind... But let's first consider the existence and then establish the attributes.

 

[LuisDantas]

This exactly is the point. Cloud of gas collapses and forms a star. This happens with regularity. Cloud of gas is directed to form a star and a star is directed to shine etc. It's not one cause and one effect. It's a chain.




Things in question were ordered things in nature, not what man ordered.

Being Itself and Pure Act is some philosophical terminology regarding Aquinas’s other proofs (ways) - the ultimate cause of: contingent things, change and so on. I brought them up because the question was: why one mind... But let's first consider the existence and then establish the attributes.

So, you are saying that spontaneous patterns are evidence of intent?

It sounds like this is the core and essence of your claims.

 

[Polymath257]

This exactly is the point. Cloud of gas collapses and forms a star. This happens with regularity. Cloud of gas is directed to form a star and a star is directed to shine etc. It's not one cause and one effect. It's a chain.

It isn't 'directed' by any intelligence. It simply acts under the action of gravity and via the laws of physics. That 'chain' is simply the chain of cause and effect.

Things in question were ordered things in nature, not what man ordered.

Precisely. The only things we know of that are designed by intelligent agents are actually designed by humans.

Being Itself and Pure Act is some philosophical terminology regarding Aquinas’s other proofs (ways) - the ultimate cause of: contingent things, change and so on. I brought them up because the question was: why one mind... But let's first consider the existence and then establish the attributes.

But Aquinas only assumed a single mind. He never actually addressed the question of uniqueness.

I agree. Let's consider existence. What do we need to do to prove the existence of something? For that matter, what do we need to do to prove cause and effect? What do we need to do to prove the existence of a mind operating in a specific case?

Minds are complicated things. As such, they do not form a simpler explanation in cases where alternative explanations can be found *unless* there is independent evidence for the existence of those minds.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is the problem with this part of the argument?

"... and this being we call God."

I think that what Christianity refers to as "God" is not quite the same as what philosophical arguments point to.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I'm not sure if you've encountered this refutation to the idea that our concepts are actually the things they represent, but here it is: draw a bicycle...

This is irrelevant. I just said that there must first be an idea of a goal (in the intellect) to cause goal-directed action.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is irrelevant. I just said that there must first be an idea of a goal (in the intellect) to cause goal-directed action.

So you didn't say this?

"This end exists as an idea in the mind (as the author above said "in the order of mental being")."

 

[Polymath257]

This is irrelevant. I just said that there must first be an idea of a goal (in the intellect) to cause goal-directed action.

To be a goal is to be an idea. But to label something as a goal is the issue. You claim certain processes to be goal-directed without actually establishing that there is a goal as opposed to simply an effect.

Is the *goal* of the heart to pump blood? Or is it simply what the heart does? Is the goal of natural selection to produce organisms more adapted to their environment or is that simply what happens when unfit organisms die and we call that process 'natural selection'? Is it the goal of gravity to produce stars from gas clouds or is that simply what happens when those gas clouds act on themselves via gravity?

You seem to assume that any order is goal-directed, even if known, simple, laws of physics produce that order.

As I see it, you use a more complicated 'explanation' (an intelligent agent) when a much simpler explanation (a law of physics) is available.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To be a goal is to be an idea. But to label something as a goal is the issue. You claim certain processes to be goal-directed without actually establishing that there is a goal as opposed to simply an effect.

Is the *goal* of the heart to pump blood? Or is it simply what the heart does? Is the goal of natural selection to produce organisms more adapted to their environment or is that simply what happens when unfit organisms die and we call that process 'natural selection'? Is it the goal of gravity to produce stars from gas clouds or is that simply what happens when those gas clouds act on themselves via gravity?

You seem to assume that any order is goal-directed, even if known, simple, laws of physics produce that order.

As I see it, you use a more complicated 'explanation' (an intelligent agent) when a much simpler explanation (a law of physics) is available.

The simple explanation still prompts the question, Why is nature (seemingly) governed by laws?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The simple explanation still prompts the question, Why is nature (seemingly) governed by laws?

Since the laws of nature are descriptive, not prescriptive, I'd say that the question is wrong-headed.

Natural laws are inferred from our observations of how things work. As long as there are "things" of some description, there will be a "how things work" of some description.

A less loaded way of asking the question would be "why do things we observe behave the way they do?"... though I'm not sure that this would do it for you, since I suspect that the loadedness of the question is the point.