Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Polymath257]

The entire physical world is an illusion. All of our knowledge of Quantum Physics has lead to this inescapable fact.

No, quantum physics says no such thing.

The mind is a priori. It contains a wealth of a priori knowledge.

Well, it is a priori for epistemology but not for ontology. minds are needed for knowledge, but not for existence.

Without God the world would be void of meaning.

I disagree. But meaning is something that comes from minds, not from the nature of things.

And the objects around us would appear false. God is a necessary being. Anyone who does not know this, such as yourself, is experiencing a persistent delusion born out of a materialistic illusion.

Well, that is your claim. But all you have done is make claims with no actual evidence, argument, or reason. Having things 'appear false' is not a reason.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And I see no reason to think that is the case. Why would a mind be required for regular behavior? Isn't simply having properties enough?

Definite properties would lead to regular interactions which leads to regular behaviors, right? The cycles are simply the fact that there is feedback (which mathematically leads to cyclic behavior)..

A mind is required because these regularities point to ends. Yes, this entails definitive properties (appropriate form), otherwise the goal wouldn't be inherent and there wouldn't be capability to realize the goal. “Upon the form follows an inclination to the end … for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends towards that which is in accordance with its form” (Aquinas).

 

[RestlessSoul]

But why would a mind be required at all? Nothing you have said forces there to be a mind for something to exist? Maybe to be known to exist requires a mind, but not existence.

Well yes, a mind is required, in order for something to be known to exist. Why then, do we assume that physical objects or processes, such as stars and galaxies, are more fundamental than the consciousness required to perceive their existence?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Humans are a part of nature, and the sperm and egg that combines to become human; lacks intelligence; my argument stands.

Once more, for the 5th way the regular "behaviour" of abiological objects suffices.

 

[Ponder This]

And yet, the idea being in minds has no bearing on what happens to that gas.

You've said something inherently nonsensical by claiming that the idea of what happens to that gas has no relation to what happens to that gas. The relation is self-evident: that what happens to that gas is understood through the idea of what happens to that gas..

An idea about a star is not a star, though.

Yes, that's laid out clearly. The argument presented did not say that the idea about a star is a star. Rather the argument claims that the idea about a star is not the same as a star. A clear distinction is made that the idea about a star is in the mental order of being, whereas a star itself is in the physical order of being. The argument depends upon this fundamental fact: that the idea about a star is not a star. The argument would fail if it were the case that the idea about a star was a star.

 

[Polymath257]

A mind is required because these regularities point to ends. Yes, this entails definitive properties (appropriate form), otherwise the goal wouldn't be inherent and there wouldn't be capability to realize the goal. “Upon the form follows an inclination to the end … for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends towards that which is in accordance with its form” (Aquinas).

Why would having properties imply a mind? Regularities only require properties, not minds; not intentions.

 

[Polymath257]

You've said something inherently nonsensical by claiming that the idea of what happens to that gas has no relation to what happens to that gas. The relation is self-evident: that what happens to that gas is understood through the idea of what happens to that gas..

But the understanding has no causal effect on that gas. So no, what happens to the gas is not influenced at all by the *idea* of the gas.

The gas exists. it has properties (like gravity) and those properties mean it behaves in certain regular ways (like collapsing and forming stars).

Yes, that's laid out clearly. The argument presented did not say that the idea about a star is a star. Rather the argument claims that the idea about a star is not the same as a star. A clear distinction is made that the idea about a star is in the mental order of being, whereas a star itself is in the physical order of being. The argument depends upon this fundamental fact: that the idea about a star is not a star. The argument would fail if it were the case that the idea about a star was a star.

And the idea of a star only exists in minds and has no causal connection to the actual behavior of those stars.

 

[Ostronomos]

No, quantum physics says no such thing.

Well, it is a priori for epistemology but not for ontology. minds are needed for knowledge, but not for existence.

I disagree. But meaning is something that comes from minds, not from the nature of things.

Well, that is your claim. But all you have done is make claims with no actual evidence, argument, or reason. Having things 'appear false' is not a reason.

You are hopelessly ignorant about Quantum Ontology. Or rather, the recent findings regarding Quantum Ontology.

It is now said that the distinction between the quantum and classical levels is superficial. Scientists are now on the verge of understanding the mysterious Quantum-Classical divide.

You are also hopelessly ignorant about the fact the Quantum theory is a non-materialistic science. And points to the simulation principle. I assume the very thought of reality as a simulation is difficult to accept for you. No wonder you wallow in ignorance and confusion.

No offense for pointing out your flaws. But we've gone around this merry go-round numerous times, and we're still back at square one.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why would having properties imply a mind? Regularities only require properties, not minds; not intentions.

Goal-directedness is evident because a natural object or a process has a tendency to produce a specific effect or range of effects. As Aquinas said: “Every agent acts for an end: otherwise one thing would not follow more than another from the action of the agent, unless it were by chance" (Summa Teologiae).