Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Regularly" doesn't mean every acorn. When acorns grow they grow into oak trees. Or do they grow into sea lions? Pointing to a goal means the goal is set (even if it's not reached).

No, it doesn't.

You're begging the question. Calling a consequence a "goal" is unjustifiedly trying to sneak the idea of intent.

If you want to make the case that there's intent in nature, then make the case. Don't use dishonest tactics.

Edit: and again, they generally don't grow into anything. Acorns mostly turn into things like mulch or squirrel feces, not oak trees... but it's your personal values that consider a mighty oak tree more significant than squirrel poop.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The "goal seeking" we see in living things is understood and explained by evolution, with no need for intelligence at all. I'm not even sure what goals you think rocks, planets, stars, and so on, have. There is certainly regularity in nature, but I see no goals.

Something is driving the process. And it’s not enough to say that something is “the laws of science and nature”, since laws are human formulations. The laws of science don’t animate the universe, they describe it; they don’t answer Stephen Hawking’s question, “What is it that puts the fire in the equations?”

 

[Koldo]

In nature. Some examples were mentioned:
The moon orbits the earth.
A struck match generates fire.
An acorn grows into an oak tree.

"The concept of final causes involves the concept of dispositions or "ends": a specific goal or aim towards which something strives. For example, acorns regularly develop into oak trees but never into sea lions." (Wiki)

You are describing the behavior of some things. Why are you calling that a goal?

 

[Koldo]

But why are there natural forces, why is there order in the universe, and how and why did that order give rise to conscious observers capable of questioning it?

Because the big bang happened.

 

[PureX]

This is the question of another group of arguments - cosmological arguments.

It's a philosophical quandary.

A teleological argument is not concerned with this question.

The categories or groupings of the various propositions isn't really relevant to the quandary, itself.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Because the big bang happened.

All of causality can be traced to that particular cosmic phenomenon, you think?

Well, maybe. But that doesn’t really answer the question, Why is there something rather than nothing? Or, Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?

 

[PureX]

So the intelligence that created the order in the universe, needs another intelligence to create the order required by the first, and that needs another intelligence, and so on off to an infinite number of intelligences getting ever more complicated and ordered.

Seriously?

We know nothing of this source but that it is logically necessary. Your argument, here, is based on nothing. Whatever the source is, it a complete mystery to us. So your complaining about it being infinitely regressed as if this is supposed to somehow negate it, are baseless and irrelevant.

 

[ratiocinator]

But why are there natural forces, why is there order in the universe, and how and why did that order give rise to conscious observers capable of questioning it?

But if you conclude that an intelligence was needed, then you have to ask "why is there this intelligence", otherwise you'd be guilty of special pleading.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But if you conclude that an intelligence was needed, then you have to ask "why is there this intelligence", otherwise you'd be guilty of special pleading.

Of course. But that doesn’t invalidate the big question; Why are we here?

 

[PureX]

You are describing the behavior of some things. Why are you calling that a goal?

Because they cease to be what they are once their goal is achieved, or negated. (The moon orbiting the Earth was a poor claim of purpose.)

The acorn is no more, whether it's eaten or taken root. The match is no more once it's potential for making fire is spent. These forms/expressions of order lose coherence once they achieve, or clearly fail to achieve their "intended" purpose.

Keep in mind that we humans do not know the "intended" purpose of all the forms and expressions of order that exist. Including ourselves. As we are not the source of the order that is being manifested.

 

[PureX]

Of course. But that doesn’t invalidate the big question; Why are we here?

Or better still, why is ANYTHING "here". What is the source of this experiential quandary? What is the purpose of it? Then, what part in it all do we play?

 

[ratiocinator]

We know nothing of this source but that it is logically necessary.

Where's the logic? The 'argument' here is just an assumption that regularity needs intelligence. The most obvious goal-seeking is in living things and we already know that that comes about without the need for intelligence.

Your argument, here, is based on nothing.

It's based on exactly the same 'reasoning' as was used for getting from the universe to an intelligent source. Either both are valid or neither.

Whatever the source is, it a complete mystery to us.

We started out with a complete mystery (basically why anything exists and is as it is). Assuming an intelligence just adds to it.

So your complaining about it being infinitely regressed as if this is supposed to somehow negate it, are baseless and irrelevant.

"Complexity and regularity needs an intelligent source" is either true or false. Having it true for the universe and invalid for the resulting intelligence is blatant special pleading.

 

[PureX]

Where's the logic? The 'argument' here is just an assumption that regularity needs intelligence. The most obvious goal-seeking is in living things and we already know that that comes about without the need for intelligence.


It's based on exactly the same 'reasoning' as was used for getting from the universe to an intelligent source. Either both are valid or neither.


We started out with a complete mystery (basically why anything exists and is as it is). Assuming an intelligence just adds to it.


"Complexity and regularity needs an intelligent source" is either true or false. Having it true for the universe and invalid for the resulting intelligence is blatant special pleading.

It's exhausting trying to fight someone else's intention to not understand. I'm sorry, but I just don't have the energy or inclination for it. And I doubt very much that anything of value would come of it, anyway. You are determined to believe that it's all some random accident. And now you want to fight to maintain that belief.

Why should I care?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Something is driving the process. And it’s not enough to say that something is “the laws of science and nature”, since laws are human formulations. The laws of science don’t animate the universe, they describe it; they don’t answer Stephen Hawking’s question, “What is it that puts the fire in the equations?”

We have laws that describe, say, the behaviour of the five fundamental forces. The explanation for this behaviour is the forces themselves. If you think something is missing, okay... but explain in a coherent way what that thing is, or at the very least exactly what problem you see that needs solving.

Every version of the teleological argument I've ever seen comes across as a theist trying to find a problem that their god - which they already believe in for other reasons - solves instead of an intellectually honest attempt to find the solution to an actual problem.

 

[Koldo]

All of causality can be traced to that particular cosmic phenomenon, you think?

Well, maybe. But that doesn’t really answer the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?

There is no reason 'why'.

Or, Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?

Given your choice of words it is as if the universe itself is a conscious entity that is actively doing something for some unknown reason to keep existing and that this unknown reason is central to understanding existance. But there is no reason to presume any of that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course. But that doesn’t invalidate the big question; Why are we here?

We don't know.

There's a paper here that discusses the question: [1802.02231] Why Is There Something, Rather Than Nothing? (there's a link for the full PDF). The final words are:

We are always welcome to look for deeper meanings and explanations. What we can’t do is demand of the universe that there be something we humans would recognize as a satisfactory reason for its existence.​

 

[ratiocinator]

It's exhausting trying to fight someone else's intention to not understand.

Yes it is.

You are determined to believe that it's all some random accident.

No, I'm not. I'm just arguing against illogical, inconsistent, and seemingly desperate attempts to believe something about it without any real basis.

 

[Koldo]

Because they cease to be what they are once their goal is achieved, or negated. (The moon orbiting the Earth was a poor claim of purpose.)

The acorn is no more, whether it's eaten or taken root. The match is no more once it's potential for making fire is spent. These forms/expressions of order lose coherence once they achieve, or clearly fail to achieve their "intended" purpose.

If something ceases to be once it either achieves it's goal or when it clearly fails, how do you figure whether it achieved it's goal or clearly failed?

If acorn is eaten, did it achieve it's goal or did it clearly fail? How did you determine this?

Keep in mind that we humans do not know the "intended" purpose of all the forms and expressions of order that exist. Including ourselves. As we are not the source of the order that is being manifested.

No reason for the quotation marks. It makes no sense to speak of goals if it doesn't involve an objective set by someone.

 

[PureX]

"Modern physics suggests that the universe can exist all by itself as a self-contained system, without anything external to create or sustain it. But there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists. I argue that any attempt to account for the existence of something rather than nothing must ultimately bottom out in a set of brute facts; the universe simply is, without ultimate cause or explanation." - Sean Carroll

Man! That is so intellectually weak it's pathetic.

First, the universe is not existence, and existence is not the universe. So even if there were any real evidence to suggest "that the universe can exist all by itself", it would not be relevant to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because that is an existential question, not a cosmological question. And here is why ... Nothing requires nothing to be nothing. IT can "exist all by itself". But for there to be SOMETHING, and not nothing, something must have happened to, or within the nothingness, to alter it. And THAT requires an external influence, or source of some kind. So it is simply not logical (nor true) to presume that something could exists "all by itself". That something could self-generate from nothingness. Something may continue existing once it's condition has been set. But it cannot have set itself. It cannot self-generate from nothingness.

 

[PureX]

If something ceases to be once it either achieves it's goal or when it clearly fails, how do you figure whether it achieved it's goal or clearly failed?

Read it's design and observe it's effect.

If acorn is eaten, did it achieve it's goal or did it clearly fail? How did you determine this?

It did both. The acorn is designed to be both food, and to be seed.

No reason for the quotation marks. It makes no sense to speak of goals if it doesn't involve an objective set by someone.

That's simply not so. Design and it's intended result (goal) does not require a "someone". It only requires a source code (for lack of a better term).