Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[PureX]

Can you elaborate?

Things happen because they can. And the more they can happen, the more they will happen. Right?

So the question is why can some things happen, and other things not happen? And why can some things happen more often than other things?

Is there a "plan"? Is there some purpose to this? These questions are cognitive. But the possibilities and impossibilities that inspires them simply are what they are. And their source us a mystery.

WE tend to conjoin these, and then insist that we can perceive these 'rules', and that the source of them must also be similarly perceiving. But in fact, the source is a complete mystery to us. Including (if) any kind or degree of cognitive intelligence and/or intent is present. So from our perspective, it makes sense to assume cognitive intent behind the existential organization that results.

But once we step out of this blind assumption, and look at it logically, we can see that we have no real reason to make this assumption. The intelligent intent that we are perceiving is really just a reflection of our own intellect. We cannot actually see behind the mysterious curtain obscuring the actual source.

 

[Ostronomos]

Entropy.

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.

*staff edit*

Atheism is not the authority. It can't even explain how consciousness arose from a strictly, supposedly material existence. In order to explain consciousness, God must be invoked as the ultimate source.

Whateber it is it is part of nature.

You mean it is part of matter? I suggest you read the multi-modal user interface theory by Donald Hoffman which actually is one of the strongest arguments for consciousness being fundamental or primary.

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.

God is the conscious universe. Which manifests lower levels of reality such as physical matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

In order to explain consciousness, God must be invoked as the ultimate source.

1. This is an unargued assertion.
2. How do you explain God (without lapsing into special pleading)?

God is the conscious universe.

Another unargued assertion.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There is no reason 'why'.



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.

There is no reason to speculate, question, presume or wonder about anything at all; other than because we are human, and it’s in our nature to be curious.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

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

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.

Your first sentence may be the first intellectually honest thing you’ve ever posted on here. But then you return to form, by closing your mind to any possibility which might not fit your materialist paradigm.

Far better to ask questions which cannot be answered, than to accept answers which cannot be questioned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is not the authority. It can't even explain how consciousness arose from a strictly, supposedly material existence. In order to explain consciousness, God must be invoked as the ultimate source.

Sounds like a mix of "I'm so awesome that I can't have arisen by accident" and "if there isn't a giant magical being on top of the cloud, how could lightning bolts be thrown out of it?"

 

[RestlessSoul]

Entropy.

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.

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.

If entropy is the process which animates the universe, then we must ask ourselves, How did the early universe acquire the low entropy conditions which set the show in motion?

What humans call Gods are descriptions of many things; which is confusing, certainly. You've already intimated that you prefer to shut the door on confusion, but for myself I'm far more distrustful of certainty. So when you say 'we' throw out certain options, at least be honest enough to admit that you speak only for yourself.

What humans call God Consciousness, on the other hand, or spiritual awakening, epiphanies etc., are descriptions of lived experience. And while experience may be necessarily subjective, this is no reason to dismiss it; for experience is, after all, everything we have.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sounds like a mix of "I'm so awesome that I can't have arisen by accident" and "if there isn't a giant magical being on top of the cloud, how could lightning bolts be thrown out of it?"

If you're not awed by your own existence, then it seems to me you can barely be conscious at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're not awed by your own existence, then it seems to me you can barely be conscious at all.

What about awe implies a god?

Edit: also, there's a difference between awe and arrogance.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What about awe implies a god?

Edit: also, there's a difference between awe and arrogance.

To experience awe, is to wonder at the miracle of our existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To experience awe, is to wonder at the miracle of our existence.

Again: what does this have to do with gods?

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Behave" has different meanings. It doesn't always mean a person directing own conduct. It can also mean acting as Aquinas mentioned. An example from Merriam Webster dictionary:

"testing how various metals behave under heat and pressure."

In the case of this writing by Aquinus it sounds like he moves from one definition into another. He moves from one definition of behavior to another definition to create a different context, to trap the person who is still in the first context. No doubt he believes in God, but he is mistaken about why. The greatest problem is that in Christ everything is supposed to be a matter of the heart. If you believe the universe has a destiny, that is a truth which appears inside of you. I'm sure it cannot be supported by arguing.

I think teleological arguments contradict a God that is beyond creation by placing God into creation. Suddenly God has motivations, cares, vulnerabilities and inabilities. This is a personal god, not God. It is like the bible in your hand made of words that limit what can be expressed. It reflects truth like the Moon reflects light from the Sun, even though the moon is considered to be bright. It is bright but only at night.

The above was a summary from Wikipedia. Here is how Aquinas phrased it:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

The self made billionnaire has had help ironically. If they look back and say "I did it myself" they are ignoring some people. Yet nobody argues that the man had been destined to be a billionnaire. Rockefeller, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos had advantages, but they were not guaranteed success.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Again: what does this have to do with gods?

Your mind is closed shut against all possibility of gods, God, a Great Spirit, or underlying creative intelligence, you've made that very clear. But if you can start by acknowledging the miracle of your existence, that may be enough to let a chink of light in.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your mind is closed shut against all possibility of gods, God, a Great Spirit, or underlying creative intelligence, you've made that very clear.

Maybe try giving an actual reason for belief in God before jumping to that conclusion.

But if you can start by acknowledging the miracle of your existence, that may be enough to let a chink of light in.

Yeah... this isn't helping to get rid of the impression that your position is based mostly on hubris.

You aren't such hot **** that a deity was required to create you and your opinions aren't "the light."

 

[PureX]

You are here.

I am here.

Here is here.

And neither you nor I is doing this.

So whomever or whatever made this so, it is far more potent than you or I. Thus, we may conclude that God is, and that God is awesome.

 

[Koldo]

Things happen because they can. And the more they can happen, the more they will happen. Right?

Not quite.
It is not that things happen because they can, but rather that only things that can happen will happen.

So the question is why can some things happen, and other things not happen? And why can some things happen more often than other things?

Is there a "plan"? Is there some purpose to this? These questions are cognitive. But the possibilities and impossibilities that inspires them simply are what they are. And their source us a mystery.

WE tend to conjoin these, and then insist that we can perceive these 'rules', and that the source of them must also be similarly perceiving. But in fact, the source is a complete mystery to us. Including (if) any kind or degree of cognitive intelligence and/or intent is present. So from our perspective, it makes sense to assume cognitive intent behind the existential organization that results.

But once we step out of this blind assumption, and look at it logically, we can see that we have no real reason to make this assumption. The intelligent intent that we are perceiving is really just a reflection of our own intellect. We cannot actually see behind the mysterious curtain obscuring the actual source.

I don't think presuming there is intent aids towards answering those questions though. Let me put it this way: Why is X the case rather than Y? Because God wanted it this way. But why did God want it this way? Because of Z reason. But why is Z reason the case rather than L reason? And the question is ultimately unanswerable.

 

[Koldo]

There is no reason to speculate, question, presume or wonder about anything at all; other than because we are human, and it’s in our nature to be curious.

Sure, but that has no bearing on there being no reason 'why'.

 

[PureX]

Not quite.
It is not that things happen because they can, but rather that only things that can happen will happen.

I fail to see any actual difference.

I don't think presuming there is intent aids towards answering those questions though. Let me put it this way: Why is X the case rather than Y? Because God wanted it this way. But why did God want it this way? Because of Z reason. But why is Z reason the case rather than L reason? And the question is ultimately unanswerable.

There are a number of possible answers. Some more reasonable than others. Some more effective when adopted than others.

What you want is a 'correct' answer. And you want to know that it's the correct answer. And that we cannot have. Sadly, I think you fail to see the advantages we can find in exploring the various possibilities.

 

[Koldo]

I fail to see any actual difference.

There are a number of possible answers. Some more reasonable than others. Some more effective when adopted than others.

What you want is a 'correct' answer. And you want to know that it's the correct answer. And that we cannot have. Sadly, I think you fail to see the advantages we can find in exploring the various possibilities.

What I am saying is that there is always going to be a 'why?' that can not be answered. Not because we don't know the answer, but rather because there is no answer.

 

[PureX]

What I am saying is that there is always going to be a 'why?' that can not be answered. Not because we don't know the answer, but rather because there is no answer.

There is no possible way for anyone to know that there is no answer to a question that they can ask, but cannot answer.

Can't you see the innately dishonest irrationality of making such a assumption? And yet we see folks proclaiming this, often. And believing it, too. Mostly because they dislike the idea that 'God' is a logical possibility.