Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PureX]

All because matter behaves according to the natural laws.

Those "laws" define what is possible, against what is not impossible.

When you say "possible" it needs to be consistent with facts, observationes, and reality, not not cultural traditions and ancient beliefs.

It does not matter what we observe, or don't observe. That which is not possible, will not happen. That which is possible, has happened, or will happen eventually.

If an acorn falls from a tree it's possible it will grow into an oak tree. It's possible it will be eaten by a squirrel. It's possible it will rot. It's not possible that it will turn into a lizard. Nor is it possible it will grow into a pine tree.

Meaning that what happens will have to follow the natural laws. No magic. No gods.

What you are calling "natural laws" are the set of what is possible, in relation to the set of what us not possible. But what is the source of these possibilities/impossibilities? We do not know. But we must logically surmise that whatever that source is, it transcends these possibility parameters that have been set for existence. And has/is doing so via some means that we have no comprehension of. You insist no gods and no magic, but this all looks quite a lot like God and magic.

That cancers exist in living organisms is not random or accidental, it's just how life evolved. That your 3 year old child happens to be born with the genes for Leukemia is the lottery of life that any organism gambles in reproduction.

These things happen because they can. One acorn gets eaten, another does not. Acorns are not invincible, and neither are we.

I'm not sure purpose is the correct word, perhaps utility. To say purpose implies intention.

The purpose of everything that exists is to fulfill the possibilities provided by existence. Both the acorn that gets eaten and the one that takes root. Both fulfill the possibilities they've been afforded. This is their purpose. We know because they cease to be once their purpose has been fulfilled.

What determines the SOMETHING that you call God?

The necessity of a source for all these possibilities and impossibilities. It is not rational nor reasonable to presume that they simply self-generated from nothing, for no reason. As nothing ever has, or does.

But for those who claim an intelligence behind what occurs in nature, explain the intelligence in cancers, especially childhood cancers.

The intelligence at work is far greater than ours. So we cannot "explain it". Why do you presume that we should be able to, when we did not design, create, nor do we maintain existence? Nor do we even understand it.

This assumes a purpose. Complexity is just a consequence of matter behaving according to the natural laws.

You keep posting this as if it's supposed to stand as some kind of final explanation. When it very clearly does not.

Of course it assumes a purpose, as we can see the purpose being fulfilled all around us, all the time. The purpose is to fulfill all the possibilities that have been afforded, and ONLY the possibilities being afforded. The result of which, then, is a highly complex and amazingly varied yet coherent expression of being.

And as I noted the possibilities have to follow these laws.

The "laws" ARE the possibilities/impossibilities.

There's nothing that suggests matter behaving according to natural laws requires any intelligence or guidance.

The "laws" themselves suggest intelligence, and they are, quite literally and practically, "guidance".

 

[PureX]

Agree. Just one comment: complexity per se is not important for the 5th Way. Regularity is.

A logical summation ... the greater the complexity of the result, the more elaborate and deliberate the process that generates it.

 

[ratiocinator]

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence. If it looks like regular motion of a planet can be explained by gravity, Aquinas is claiming that intelligence must be behind gravity for it to create such regular motion.

Which, of course, is nothing but an unargued and seriously problematic assumption. All the evidence we have is that intelligence requires order and regularity, not the other way around. And, of course just making up a God, doesn't really explain anything at all, because we would have no idea why this God exists. Like so many of these arguments, it really doesn't amount to much more than "this is mysterious, I dunno, it must be magic."

 

[ratiocinator]

A logical summation ... the greater the complexity of the result, the more elaborate and deliberate the process that generates it.

Oh, look! An infinite regress.

 

[PureX]

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence.

Order requires deliberation, and deliberation implies intent (intelligence).

 

[Tomef]

Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent.

Once you remove this, there’s no argument left. It made sense at the time, without an alternative explanation. Now we have that. The alternative explanation offers more convincing proofs than the idea of an invisible god does.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If an acorn falls from a tree it's possible it will grow into an oak tree. It's possible it will be eaten by a squirrel. It's possible it will rot. It's not possible that it will turn into a lizard. Nor is it possible it will grow into a pine tree.

Exactly. There is regularity and it produces specific effects (rather than arbitrary).

"The universe is filled with natural regularities; this is uncontroversial. These include the regularities manifested in the biological realm–the way the heart pumps blood, thus keeping an organism alive, or the way a species is so adapted to its environment that its members can reliably find sources of food, reproduce themselves, and so forth–but Aquinas is not especially interested in these over any others. Indeed, unlike [William] Paley and ‘Intelligent Design’ proponents, he is not, for the purpose of the Fifth Way, particularly interested in complexity per se at all. The regularity with which the moon orbits the earth, or the regularity of the way a struck match generates fire–both very simple examples compared to eyes, hearts, species, and the like–are no less important. Indeed, they are more important for his argument. For life is a fairly rare phenomenon, confined so far as we know only to the earth. But the far simpler causal regularities I have been speaking of are completely general, and pervade the physical universe. Indeed, they largely constitute the physical universe, which can be thought of as a vast system of material elements interacting according to regular patterns of cause and effect. But there is no way to make sense of these regularities apart from the notion of final causation, of things being directed toward an end or goal. For it is not just the case that a struck match regularly generates fire, heat, and the like; it regularly generates fire and heat specifically, rather than ice, or the smell of lilacs, or the sound of a trumpet. It is not just the case that the moon regularly orbits the earth in a regular pattern; it orbits the earth specifically, rather than quickly swinging out to Mars and back now and again, or stopping dead for five minutes here and there, or dipping down toward the earth occasionally and then quickly popping back up. And so on for all the innumerable regularities that fill the universe at any moment. 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’ . . . 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."​

(Feser, Edward. The Last Superstition)​

 

[PearlSeeker]

Once you remove this, there’s no argument left. It made sense at the time, without an alternative explanation. Now we have that. The alternative explanation offers more convincing proofs than the idea of an invisible god does.

Sorry. I'm not sure I understand you. What is an alternative explanation and for what?

 

[F1fan]

Order requires deliberation, and deliberation implies intent (intelligence).

So what causes the intelligence?

 

[ratiocinator]

Order requires deliberation...

Deliberation requires order. Now what?

 

[PureX]

So what causes the intelligence?

Apparently, it's a necessity of being. Certainly it's a necessity of cognition.

Why does anything 'exist'? Why are we aware of it existing? The answers to those questions are far above our human pay grade.

 

[PureX]

Deliberation requires order. Now what?

Order requires deliberation. Deliberation requires choice. Choice requires the recognition of various processes leading to various results. And that both requires and implies intelligence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Order requires deliberation.

Unsupported assertion.

Deliberation requires choice. Choice requires the recognition of various processes leading to various results. And that both requires and implies intelligence.

And any mind that makes such choices and designs and produces something, is necessarily more complex and ordered than that which it produces, so your aforementioned assertion leads directly to infinite regress.

 

[PureX]

Unsupported assertion.

I'm not going to fight with your willful ignorance.

And any mind that makes such choices and designs and produces something, is necessarily more complex and ordered than that which it produces, so your aforementioned assertion leads directly to infinite regress.

Somehow you seem to imaging this matters.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not going to fight with your willful ignorance.

It appears to be an assertion based on ignorance, intuition, and wishful thinking.

Somehow you seem to imaging this matters.

And you can't think of a problem with it?

 

[osgart]

A natural intelligence to existence is far more likely than a supreme intelligence that is masterful.

The purposes in nature are not grande, rather they are very small ones. The grandest purpose to existence is to survive, and attempt to understand it after that.

To take the apparent intelligence in nature all the way to God is a far stretch that doesn't quite make it.

Intelligence is a phenomenon that takes intelligence to create it. That would suggest intellect is an eternal aspect of existence and not just a pop up phenomenon. Yet intelligence doesn't mean mastery; it just means that something is of intellect. Perhaps the universe is program like in its intelligence, and not all intelligence is living, though it may come from living agencies.

 

[F1fan]

Apparently, it's a necessity of being. Certainly it's a necessity of cognition.

That sounds like it is a property of matter as it behaves according to natural laws. So your intelligence is like a natural law itself?

Why does anything 'exist'?

Because stuff has always existed. There is no why to answer.

Why are we aware of it existing?

The biological evolution of brains.

The answers to those questions are far above our human pay grade.

Undisciplined thinkers will ask questions that have no answers, and might not even be relevant to reality. They can get greedy for an answer and invent one. These false answers can even be adopted due to cultural traditions of belief.

Wise minds are content with uncertainty and that we can’t answer certain questions.

 

[PureX]

And you can't think of a problem with it?

No, because I don't presume to expect otherwise.

 

[PureX]

That sounds like it is a property of matter as it behaves according to natural laws. So your intelligence is like a natural law itself?

You aren't understanding me.

Existence requires order, as nothing can exist in chaos but chaos. Nothing can form, and stay formed. Nothing recognizable can manifest in chaos but abject chaos. Chaos IS nothingness. Differentiation, and thereby SOMETHING happens when some recognizable order forms against the backdrop of the meaningless nothingness of abject chaos.

There are no possibilities without there being some impossibilities for them to stand out against. Why is this so? None of us knows. It would appear to be a cognitive rule even the gods couldn't break.

Because stuff has always existed. There is no why to answer.

But we already know that stuff has not always existed. At least we presume to know that.

Undisciplined thinkers will ask questions that have no answers, and might not even be relevant to reality.

Those are the only real questions worth asking. Everything else is just auto-mechanics. It's functionally useful, but basically selfish and kinda wimpy.

They can get greedy for an answer and invent one. These false answers can even be adopted due to cultural traditions of belief.

You don't seem to understand how curiosity works. Or why it's such an important gift to humanity.

Wise minds are content with uncertainty and that we can’t answer certain questions.

Yet you seem to be quite annoyed by it. To the point that you really want to ignore any question that you cannot certainly answer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's definitely not pareidolia - detecting a pattern where there is none. It's an explanation of actual patterns, order, regularity in nature... - what we all see.

But that's just like pareidolia.

In pareidolia, the colouration on the piece of toast or whatever really is what it is, and it may really look like Jesus or whatever, but there's an erroneous inference of intent or design behind it.

The mentality that says "this planet's orbit is really ellipsoidal; God must be responsible" is not that different from the mentality that says "the stain on the side of this gas station really looks like the Virgin Mary; God must be responsible."