Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Valjean]

Of course ideas should be tested, the God idea being no exception. If faith in God didn’t work for me personally, I would have abandoned it years ago: and more easily than contemporaries of Copernicus abandoned the Ptolemaic model of cosmology. The simple and well evidenced fact is that faith works, for millions of people, every day; and isn’t labelling reliance spiritual principles “a trick to get through tough times” simply to take a utilitarian approach? Something I imagine you’d be perfectly comfortable win other contexts.

Yes, what does ontological truth have to do with utility? Utility's not the measure of religious faith.

Faith does "work" for millions of people all over the world, but the facts, legends, and theology they have faith in vary, and are often contradictory.
How do contradictory claims support anything?

How would one test a god-claim, since 'working for me' is epistemically useless?

 

[Valjean]

Does this change anything? Function is just another word for an example of final causality or goal-directedness.

No, this is like the "just a theory" strawman. In biology, function denotes a non goal-directed, unintentional relationship.

 

[PearlSeeker]

No, this is like the "just a theory" strawman. In biology, function denotes a non goal-directed, unintentional relationship.

So, saying that theart's function is to pump blood doesn't mean that the heart serves this purpose or is oriented to this natural end?

 

[Valjean]

So, saying that theart's function is to pump blood doesn't mean that the heart serves this purpose or is oriented to this natural end?

It does pump blood, and this function is vital, but this function was not planned or intentionally designed.

Purpose implies intention, or designed to accomplish an intended outcome.
Function implies no purpose or intention. Biological functions are complex, corödinated, coöperative interactions arising purely mechanically through the blind mechanisms of evolution.

 

[PearlSeeker]

To the materialist, the world is animated only by physical forces arising from laws of nature: so all purpose, function and direction comes solely from those laws.

Which begs an awful lot of questions, such as why there are laws in the first place? and, if laws are observable order, what is the role of the observer? But only the philosophically inclined will even acknowledge the validity of such questions. And most, but not all materialists generally distrust philosophy as much as they do theology.

It looks like mechanical philosophy banished formal and final causes from the natural world. Everything in this world is meaningless and purposeless. There are only blind laws of nature.

 

[Valjean]

It looks like mechanical philosophy banished formal and final causes from the natural world. Everything in this world is meaningless and purposeless. There are only blind laws of nature.

Huh? Where'd you come up with that?
I suppose the formal cause of evolution is its mechanisms: mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, sexual selection, gene flow, &c; and chemistry.
The final cause might be construed as the same things, but being without intentional design or purpose, it's hard to impute any telos to nature.

Most of the stuff we work with every day is human designed or created. It has the meaning and purpose we give it. But extending the qualities of human creations to all creations is an error of composition. Chemistry and physics have no consciousness, therefore no plan or intended ends.

That said, we're still free to give whatever meaning and purpose we want to whatever we want.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Which begs an awful lot of questions, such as why there are laws in the first place? and, if laws are observable order, what is the role of the observer?

To phrase the question differently: Why is the universe intelligible?

The intelligible order was there, long before the first scientist began to observe it and study it. Science explains the mechanisms of this order but not the origin - a question that goes beyond empirical study of nature.

I am not postulating a “God of the gaps,” a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains. (Richard Swinburne)​

​

The Intelligible Universe – Albert Norton, author

 

[RestlessSoul]

To phrase the question differently: Why is the universe intelligible?

The intelligible order was there, long before the first scientist began to observe it and study it. Science explains the mechanisms of this order but not the origin - a question that goes beyond empirical study of nature.

I am not postulating a “God of the gaps,” a god merely to explain the things that science has not yet explained. I am postulating a God to explain why science explains; I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains. (Richard Swinburne)​

​

The Intelligible Universe – Albert Norton, author

In the beginning was the Logos.

Logos being the underlying creative order.

 

[Polymath257]

Stars shine and produce/recycle/distribute material in universe. Round shape is actually the best to reach all directions.

But when the stars rotate, their emissions do not go out uniformly in all directions. The roundness is simply because of gravity.

BTW "Form" is not only the shape. It means all characteristic features (essential properties).

OK, and?

We are talking about plants, right?

And DNA itself contains "directions", "code", "instructions" etc.

No, DNA is a chemical. Like all matter, it contains information. But it does NOT contain 'instructions' or 'code' or 'directions'. It is a sequence of nucleic acids. Those then interact with other chemicals in a fairly long process and proteins are formed (along with many other chemicals). Those proteins catalyze reactions, or are structural, or whatever.

There is no *goal*. Instead, those living things that manage to survive can pass on their DNA to the next generation, allowing for mutation and natural selection. THIS is what produces complexity and the *appearance* of teleology.

 

[Polymath257]

It looks like mechanical philosophy banished formal and final causes from the natural world. Everything in this world is meaningless and purposeless. There are only blind laws of nature.

No, meaning and purpose are *social* and *individual* constructs, not something inherent in the world. Final causes exist only when there is an intelligent agent. At this point, the only intelligent agents we know reside on one small planet: Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

This is in effect an (as yet) unfalsifiable axiom of the materialist worldview. All we can say with absolute certainty is that, without the participation of a conscious observer, no evidence for the properties of any entity, can be discerned.

Beyond that, all statements about the relationship between object, observer, and the act of observation, are speculative.

Yes, knowledge is dependent on minds. And we obtain our limited information about the world through our senses. That is a limitation concerning knowledge, not existence.

And yes, speculation (making hypotheses) is a crucial first step to obtaining knowledge about the world. The next step is *testing* those speculations to see which ones actually work in practice.

As I see it, consciousness is the limitation we have to work with in order to learn about the world. It is *why* we can learn about the world. But it seems to be restricted to this one planet and maybe only a few species on this planet. As far as i can see, it is not a fundamental aspect of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

To the materialist, the world is animated only by physical forces arising from laws of nature: so all purpose, function and direction comes solely from those laws.

Which begs an awful lot of questions, such as why there are laws in the first place? and, if laws are observable order, what is the role of the observer? But only the philosophically inclined will even acknowledge the validity of such questions. And most, but not all materialists generally distrust philosophy as much as they do theology.

To ask 'why' assumes there is a cause. But when it comes to fundamental laws, there *cannot* be a cause because any cause would be *more* fundamental. So even asking for a 'why' when it comes to fundamental laws seems contrary to reason.

What is the role of the observer? Well, observers are the ones that collect information and speculate about what the rules are. It is in the minds of conscious beings that the laws can be understood and investigated.

Yes, many scientists (not just materialists) distrust philosophy because of its track record. Philosophers tend to see things as 'obvious' that turn out to be false. They tend to raise rather silly objections to ideas, thereby wasting time and energy with nonsense. In fact, only very few times in the history of science has philosophy per se had any significant positive impact at all. Usually, the best thing a scientist can do to further understanding is to ignore philosophers and just do the work of science. A similar statement is true for math, by the way. It is easy to get lost in rather meaningless philosophical speculations that go exactly nowhere and reach no conclusions.

 

[Polymath257]

In the beginning was the Logos.

Logos being the underlying creative order.

Well, that is the claim of Platonists, at least.

Now, why should we believe such a construct even exists, let alone was at the 'beginning'? Why would we believe such a thing 'underlies' creative order?

That seems like a HUGE claim to me without anything supporting it.

 

[PureX]

Well, that is the claim of Platonists, at least.

Now, why should we believe such a construct even exists, ...

Because it is a logical necessity.

What you call "laws" are just our human recognition of a limited set of possibilities being fulfilled against a background of infinite impossibility. Which, because we are curious humans, begs the question, "why?". Why is THIS possible, as opposed to anything else? What is the source that is determing these possibilities?

In your language, why these "laws" and no others? What is their source? You claim blindly that they can't logically have a source but logic clearly drives us to presume that they must.

let alone was at the 'beginning'? Why would we believe such a thing 'underlies' creative order?

The "beginning" question is not relevant. As it presume time where time would not have existed.

That seems like a HUGE claim to me without anything supporting it.

From your past posts it is obvious that for whatever reason you are blind to anything that is not cognitively "concrete". So I seriously doubt that will ever change.

 

[Polymath257]

Because it is a logical necessity.

Really? It doesn't seem like it.

What you call "laws" are just our human recognition of a limited set of possibilities being fulfilled against a background of infinite impossibility.

Not the way I see it. Physical laws are a description of how physical things act. Since physical things have properties, they do not interact randomly nor arbitrarily.

Which, because we are curious humans, begs the question, "why?". Why is THIS possible, as opposed to anything else? What is the source that is determing these possibilities?

And why would you expect causality to be relevant here? Causality is a *result* of physical laws, not the originator of such laws.

So what reason can you give to *expect* there to be an answer to the question of 'why'? Sure, it would be nice. But the very question seems to undermine itself.

In your language, why these "laws" and no others? What is their source? You claim blindly that they can't logically have a source but logic clearly drives us to presume that they must.

I don't think there *can* be an explanation for why we have one set of laws as opposed to another. The world works the way it does. If it had different laws, it would act differently. To ask why we have one set of laws as opposed to another really just asks for a *deeper* set of laws to explain the laws we have.

At the most fundamental level, therefore, the laws *cannot* be explained further: they are simply raw facts of existence.

The "beginning" question is not relevant. As it presume time where time would not have existed.

From you posts it is obvious that for whatever reason are blind to anything that is not cognitively "concrete". So I seriously doubt that will ever change.

Not blind. I just consider it to be irrelevant to real understanding. A mistake, so to speak.

 

[PureX]

Really? It doesn't seem like it.

... to you. I know. But nevertheless, something is happening. And that something is not nothing, and is not everything. So we have to ask why. Because there is no evidence or experience available to us that would lead us to think that something could come from nothingness. Clearly, (logically) we are missing a source. And whatever that source is, it must transcend the limitations of both the present 'something' it enables, and the eternal nothingness within which that something is occurring.

Not the way I see it. Physical laws are a description of how physical things act. Since physical things have properties, they do not interact randomly nor arbitrarily.

I understand. And I doubt you will ever be able to see past this.

And why would you expect causality to be relevant here? Causality is a *result* of physical laws, not the originator of such laws.

I am not discussing causality. I am discussing the source of possibility. How does something become possible against a field of infinite impossibility? And yet here something is, against a field of infinite impossibility.

I don't think there *can* be an explanation for why we have one set of laws as opposed to another.

That does' mean the question is moot. Nor that we should not be asking it.

The world works the way it does. If it had different laws, it would act differently.

That is a moot observation.

To ask why we have one set of laws as opposed to another really just asks for a *deeper* set of laws to explain the laws we have.

Not really. It's a mystery. However we try to fill in the question it remains a mystery. There is no more reason to presume a deeper set of laws than not to based on logic or knowledge. Logic takes us to the mystery. After that, it's up to us what we do with it.

At the most fundamental level, therefor, the laws *cannot* be explained further: they are simply raw facts of existence.

The laws never really explained anything. They still don't.

Not blind. I just consider it to be irrelevant to real understanding. A mistake, so to speak.

The blindness is in relation to what you call "real understanding". For you, that is a very "concrete" ideal. In reality, however, it is not concrete at all. It's very ephemeral and mysterious.

 

[Polymath257]

... to you. I know. But nevertheless, something is happening. And that something is not nothing, and is not everything. So we have to ask why. Because there is no evidence or experience available to us that would lead us to think that something could come from nothingness.

That is not true. In fact, quantum mechanics says that it is almost inevitable.

Clearly, (logically) we are missing a source.

No. We are missing other alternatives. Such as that there is no source.

And whatever that source is, it must transcend the limitations of both the present 'something' it enables, and the eternal nothingness within which that something is occurring.

I understand. And I doubt you will ever be able to see past this.

And what do you see as 'past this'?

I am not discussing causality. I am discussing the source of possibility.

To be a source means causality.

How does something become possible against a field of infinite impossibility? And yet here something is, against a field of infinite impossibility.

And that assumes causality.

That does' mean the question is moot. Nor that we should not be asking it.

Of course not. We should always ask if we can probe deeper. But we should also realize that at the deepest level there is no deeper.

That is a moot observation.

Not really. It's a mystery. However we try to fill in the question it remains a mystery. There is no more reason to presume a deeper set of laws than not to based on logic or knowledge. Logic takes us to the mystery. After that, it's up to us what we do with it.

Yes, the most basic mystery is that there is something rather than nothing. About that, nothing can be said.

The laws never really explained anything. They still don't.

Sure they do. In fact, they constitute what it means to 'explain': we always explain in terms of more basic laws.

The blindness is in relation to what you call "real understanding". For you, that is a very "concrete" ideal. In reality, however, it is not concrete at all. It's very ephemeral and mysterious.

To you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, that is the claim of Platonists, at least.

Now, why should we believe such a construct even exists, let alone was at the 'beginning'? Why would we believe such a thing 'underlies' creative order?

That seems like a HUGE claim to me without anything supporting it.

It’s also a quote, from the first verse of John’s Gospel (itself a conscious echo of the opening verses of Genesis). But you don’t have to believe something in order to at least consider it.

That there is order in the universe, we can reasonably take as axiomatic. Whether order itself is fundamental, or it emerges from fundamental laws of nature, is a pretty subtle distinction in my view. Almost like asking if a phenomenon emerges from itself, which is how Gottfried Liebnitz envisaged the universe actualising itself.

Whatever. You’re a mathematician, right? Isn’t mathematics in large part, the study and application of abstract order? An arrangement of abstract concepts which, as well as being internally consistent and self affirming, also manifests an amazing harmony with the material universe? From where then, do these abstractions emerge? From human consciousness, or from properties of the physical universe to which they so precisely conform?

It doesn’t seem that much of a philosophical leap, to posit a tri-partite (rather than dualist) reality comprising three closely connected realms, the mental, the physical and the abstract ideal. Indeed, it might be argued that pure reason leads us to such a model.

 

[PureX]

That is not true. In fact, quantum mechanics says that it is almost inevitable.

No it doesn't. You're just interpreting it that way.

And what do you see as 'past this'?

"Meta-reality". The mind that has bought into materialism as the sole truth of 'what is' cannot see beyond itself.

To be a source means causality.

Actually it doesn't. DNA is a source, self-replication is a cause. These are not the same things.

We should always ask if we can probe deeper. But we should also realize that at the deepest level there is no deeper.

There is no known "deepest level".

Yes, the most basic mystery is that there is something rather than nothing. About that, nothing can be said.

About that, anything can be said. Because anything is possible. Whatever the solution to that mystery is, it is beyond our comprehension. But not our imaginations. This is what you materialists really, really don't like. That imagination can probe and explore where evidence and facts and empirical science (knowledge) cannot.

Sure they do. In fact, they constitute what it means to 'explain': we always explain in terms of more basic laws.

Only the scientism cultists think that explaining how something physically functions has somehow explained how and why it exists.

 

[Polymath257]

It’s also a quote, from the first verse of John’s Gospel (itself a conscious echo of the opening verses of Genesis). But you don’t have to believe something in order to at least consider it.

I have considered it. As I have said before, I consider Platonism to be one of the biggest philosophical mistakes made.

That there is order in the universe, we can reasonably take as axiomatic. Whether order itself is fundamental, or it emerges from fundamental laws of nature, is a pretty subtle distinction in my view. Almost like asking if a phenomenon emerges from itself, which is how Gottfried Liebnitz envisaged the universe actualising itself.

Whatever. You’re a mathematician, right? Isn’t mathematics in large part, the study and application of abstract order?

Yes.

An arrangement of abstract concepts which, as well as being internally consistent and self affirming, also manifests an amazing harmony with the material universe?

Some small parts of mathematics can be used to make models of what we observe.

From where then, do these abstractions emerge? From human consciousness, or from properties of the physical universe to which they so precisely conform?

My position is that they are from human consciousness. We invent the rules of math and discover their consequences.

It doesn’t seem that much of a philosophical leap, to posit a tri-partite (rather than dualist) reality comprising three closely connected realms, the mental, the physical and the abstract ideal. Indeed, it might be argued that pure reason leads us to such a model.

View attachment 98943

From what I have seen, the mathematical world is a part of the mental world and the mental world is an aspect of the physical world.