Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Anthropomorphism is a hell of a drug.

This thread keeps reminding me of a short film we studied in film class: the Red Balloon. Most of the film is the title character - and it is a character - being blown around on the wind, unchoreographed by the filmmaker, but the audience is made to interpret these unguided movements as expressions of intentionality and even emotion from what's nothing more than a rubber balloon.

"Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?"

"What made the balloon so sad that it decided to hover in the corner?"

 

[Koldo]

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

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

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).

From the design we can infer or describe how something is going to behave either by itself or when interacted with, but the concept of having a goal is something else entirely. The latter involves wanting/desiring a certain outcome.

It also doesn't make sense to talk of an intended result if there is no someone behind this. Intention requires cognition.

 

[Koldo]

"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.

When you use the word 'nothingness', what do you imagine? Describe it to me.

 

[PureX]

We have laws that describe, say, the behaviour of the five fundamental forces. The explanation for this behaviour is the forces themselves.

The questions being asked are not about the behavior that results from the "laws" being imposed. The question is about the source of those "laws". And I put the term "laws" in quotes because they are just our perception of the possibilities and impossibilities being afforded and imposed on existence, so as to allow it to continue existing.

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.

The quandary that we are facing is the question of the source of these possibilities and impossibilities, and their possible purpose.

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.

Once you stop looking for that bogeyman, you will stop seeing him everywhere you look.

 

[PureX]

When you use the word 'nothingness', what do you imagine? Describe it to me.

There is nothing to describe. Why would you ask such a silly question?

 

[ratiocinator]

Nothing requires nothing to be nothing. IT can "exist all by itself".

Not even sure nothing is a self-consistent concept. Space and time (spacetime) is not nothing so nothing can't persist at all.

But for there to be SOMETHING, and not nothing, something must have happened to, or within the nothingness, to alter it.

This is incoherent, for the reason stated above; it had no duration, so nothing can happen to it or from it.

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 set itself. It cannot self-generate from nothingness.

You're stuck in the pre-20th century view of time here. The modern conception of space-time is on 4-dimensional manifold. There is no 'self-generating'. Time is just directions through the manifold. There is no obvious reason why it needs anything else to exist. It is not embedded in time, so the manifold as a whole 'just is'. It did not begin to exist and cannot stop existing.

You claiming that Sean Carroll's views are "intellectually weak" and "pathetic" is actually hilarious, considering your own lack of ability in both logic and science.

About – Sean Carroll

www.preposterousuniverse.com

 

[PureX]

From the design we can infer or describe how something is going to behave either by itself or when interacted with, but the concept of having a goal is something else entirely. The latter involves wanting/desiring a certain outcome.

What does certainty have to do with anything? The acorn might perish in a forest fire. That doesn't alter it's design, nor the purpose of it's design.

It also doesn't make sense to talk of an intended result if there is no someone behind this. Intention requires cognition.

What you think makes sense does not determine what is. That would just be bias-blindness. It's why it's important to be willing to try and speculate beyond our comfortable presumptions.

 

[PureX]

Not even sure nothing is a self-consistent concept.

Actually, it's the PERFECT self-consistent concept. It is fully self-generated and requires absolutely nothing to maintain its coherence.

Space and time (spacetime) is not nothing so nothing can't persist at all.

Nothingness requires no space or time. It requires absolutely nothing to be fully what it is.

This is incoherent, for the reason stated above; it had no duration, so nothing can happen to it or from it.

This is a shortfall of your ability to cognate nothing. It's not a shortfall of nothingness itself.

You claiming that Sean Carroll's views are "intellectually weak" and "pathetic" is actually hilarious, considering your own lack of ability in both logic and science.

You and Carroll cannot grasp that this is not a "scientific" quandary. That science has nothing to contribute to this particular conversation. And the inability to understand and accept this is one of the main flaws of 'scientism'.

 

[Koldo]

There is nothing to describe. Why would you ask such a silly question?

You said "But for there to be SOMETHING, and not nothing, something must have happened to, or within the nothingness, to alter it".

If there is nothing to describe when you think of nothingness, how could something have happened to or within nothigness? Neither could have happened. You are thinking of nothingness as preceding the existence of something, and trying to find a solution as to how something could come to be, but the problem is: Nothingness didn't preceed the existence of something.

 

[Koldo]

What does certainty have to do with anything? The acorn might perish in a forest fire. That doesn't alter it's design, nor the purpose of it's design.

I didn't mention the word 'certainty', so I don't know what you are talking about.

What you think makes sense does not determine what is. That would just be bias-blindness. It's why it's important to try and speculate beyond our comfortable presumptions.

That's just my way of expressing my self. You can stick to the final part: Intention requires cognition.

 

[Tomef]

Scientists have discovered and studied examples of regularity and order in nature and have gained some knowledge but that doesn't explain why things happen this way.

The idea that science either explains everything or there is a god is kind of a straw man. The point is that science has enough explanatory power to make the god hypothesis irrelevant, given that all we have to support the idea of a god are various different human writings. Why suppose that one or any of those just happens to correspond with something real? That assumption might have made sense at one point, but centuries of science have provided a much more reliable and testable framework to build an understanding of the universe on.

 

[PureX]

You said "But for there to be SOMETHING, and not nothing, something must have happened to, or within the nothingness, to alter it".

If there is nothing to describe when you think of nothingness, how could something happened to or within nothingness?

It would logically have to have come from beyond, or outside the state of nothingness, and have been more potent.

Neither could have happened.

Anything could have happened. Because it's all beyond our limited human comprehension.

You are thinking of nothingness as preceding the existence of something,

No, I am stating that nothingness is an eternal, perfect state. Something(ness) is not. Yet something is what we have, now. So that eternal perfect state is no longer eternal or perfect. It has been usurped. How? Why?

... and trying to find a solution as to how something could came to be, but the problem is: Nothingness didn't preceed the existence of something.

There is no "preceding" involved because there is no time element involved. There is the perfect singularity of nothingness, and the imperfect multiplicity of somethingness. Somethingness usurped the nothingness. And here we all are.

 

[F1fan]

The 5th way is abou how things happen with regularity. For example when you heat a piece of toast bread to certain temperature it becomes crunchy... Meaningful pictures on the surface are not a regular result - they have nothing to do with natural laws.

Sure they do. Not all pieces of bread have the same structcure, as the yeast and dough has different concentrations and create different bubbles as the dough rises. Some areas are dense and others less so. The texture will show different patterns as it is toasted. All natural.

The same as when you mix sodium and choride, two poisons, yet they become ordinary table salt and safe to consume. Mixing these two elements always result in the same thing, with regularity. That's because matter behaves according to the natural laws, and there's no deviation.

You might see Jesus in a burnt piece of toast, and that's because you were exposed to ideas and images of a Christian icon called Jesus. A Hindu might see Ranjeet, the guy who works in his office. It's eye of the beholder.

 

[PureX]

That's just my way of expressing my self. You can stick to the final part: Intention requires cognition.

But not necessarily together.

 

[F1fan]

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

The actual honest answer is: we don't know.

We enocounter theists in the 21st century who aren't re;ying on facts and observationes to promote their answers, but relying on a tradition of belief. This is why "God" as a cause for anything is dismissed, it is just a tradition of belief, and has no basis in fact and observation.

Well, maybe. But that doesn’t really answer the question,

That's why "I don't know" is the honest position.

Why is there something rather than nothing? Or, Why does the universe go to all the trouble of existing?

Why ask questions that you have no way to answer definitively? Just crave the confusion? Just setting the stage to justify belief in old ideas that have no basis in fact? This illustrates the dilemma for those who have adopted a habit and tradition of belief, they can't move past this mental process.

 

[F1fan]

Something is driving the process.

Entropy.

And it’s not enough to say that something is “the laws of science and nature”, since laws are human formulations.

The laws are described by humans who measure and observe them working. The human invention are the gods that are claimed to be creators, sustainers, causes, etc. There's no evidence for gods, and no observations. So we throw them out as options.

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?”

Whateber it is it is part of nature. Whether we understand what it is or not is what matters. What is important is being wary of the habit and tradition of belief that has no basis in fact or observation. What humans call "gods" are not descriptions of anything.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is fully self-generated and requires absolutely nothing to maintain its coherence.

It can't be maintained. There can't be any time.

This is a shortfall of your ability to cognate nothing.

It looks much more like a shortfall in your ability to understand time.

You and Carroll cannot grasp that this is not a "scientific" quandary. That science has nothing to contribute to this particular conversation.

You quoted Carroll talking about physics, in order to criticise it. You went on to make a nonsense statement that something required something to happen to nothingness, which shows a lack of logical reasoning and understanding of the nature of time.

Every time you refer to things happening, you are bringing time into the discussion and time is something that science can and does tell us about.

Carroll is qualified in philosophy and well as theoretical physics.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, I am stating that nothingness is an eternal, perfect state.

Nonsensical. Nothingness can't be eternal. Eternal needs time.

 

[Koldo]

It would logically have to have come from beyond, or outside the state of nothingness, and have been more potent.

Anything could have happened. Because it's all beyond our limited human comprehension.

No, I am stating that nothingness is an eternal, perfect state. Something(ness) is not. Yet something is what we have, now. So that eternal perfect state is no longer eternal or perfect. It has been usurped. How? Why?

There is no "preceding" involved because there is no time element involved. There is the perfect singularity of nothingness, and the imperfect multiplicity of somethingness. Somethingness usurped the nothingness. And here we all are.

An eternal perfect state IS something. That's not nothingness. That's exactly why I just asked you to describe nothingness to me, because it was apparent you were thinking of something rather than nothing.

 

[Koldo]

But not necessarily together.

Can you elaborate?