Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[ratiocinator]

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.

And yet, when we ask why 'God' exists, we get no answer, a non-answer, or some other direct equivalent to there being no answer.

 

[blü 2]

Both arguments are from design (teleological) but they are totally different.

The Watchmaker analogy:
1. focuses on the complexity of living things, their organs...
2. depends on extrinsic teleology.
3. is a probabilistic argument - God is more probably the cause than an impersonal force. Evolution theory drastically lowers this probability.

Aquinas's 5th Way on the other hand:
1. is based on Aristotle's intrinsic teleology - final causality in the world.
2. Examples are also simple regularities (no need for complexity).
3. The argument is a metaphysical demonstration (not just probability or "God of the gaps"). Evolution theory does not affect the Aquinas's Fifth Way.


Why forces "external to them"? Are they not part of the natural world? But why do they act as they act?

Yes, things that have no intelligence act in regular patterns. This exactly is the point. We as intelligent beings can choose for ourselves the goals/ends/purposes of some actions. Things with no intelligence can't.

But what is there to explain that evolution doesn't explain, whether any intelligence is found or not?

 

[PureX]

And yet, when we ask why 'God' exists, we get no answer, a non-answer, or some other direct equivalent to there being no answer.

True. But then why would you then assume that there is no answer; just because you don't have it? Or that there is no God just because you can;t know it? Instead of accepting that it's we that cannot know, and that because we cannot know, God remains a valid and powerful possibility for us to explore.

 

[Koldo]

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.

It has nothing to do with God being a logical possibility. I can show you how there is ultimately no answer. If I ask you something (it could be anything) and you give me an answer I can keep asking 'why' indefinitely, and we will reach a point where you will have to answer, even if you were omniscient: That's just the way it is and there is no 'why'.

 

[ratiocinator]

True. But then why would you then assume that there is no answer; just because you don't have it? Or that there is no God just because you can;t know it? Instead of accepting that it's we that cannot know, and that because we cannot know, God remains a valid and powerful possibility for us to explore.

Why go beyond just accepting that we don't know why the universe exists, or if there's an answer at all? There's a fundamental trilemma in asking why questions, directly equivalent to asking for proofs.

1. Some kind of circularity of reasons.
2. Infinite regress of reasons.
3. Bottoming out at some 'brute fact' that itself has no reason, but just is.

As Carroll pointed out, the modern view of the universe and the nature of space-time means that there is no obvious dependence on anything else. Before Einstein there seemed to be the obvious question of what started it all, or what was the cause of the universe, but that is no longer something that is needed as the space-time can be self-contained, causeless, and (as a whole) timeless.

Reality isn't under any obligation to provide us with something we, as humans, regard as a satisfactory reason for its existence.

 

[Koldo]

True. But then why would you then assume that there is no answer; just because you don't have it? Or that there is no God just because you can;t know it? Instead of accepting that it's we that cannot know, and that because we cannot know, God remains a valid and powerful possibility for us to explore.

What is there to be explored about this possibility that has not been explored already? What are you looking for?

 

[PureX]

It has nothing to do with God being a logical possibility. I can show you how there is ultimately no answer. If I ask you something (it could be anything) and you give me an answer I can keep asking 'why' indefinitely, and we will reach a point where you will have to answer, even if you were omniscient: That's just the way it is and there is no 'why'.

This is wrong on several levels.

First, there are answers to the huge majority of 'why' questions that we can ask. So logic would dictate that when we encounter one that we cannot answer, there very likely is an answer, we just don't know what that answer is.

And because we don't know what that answer is, we can keep repeating the question over and over. But this in no way implies that there is no answer, only that we don't have it.

We don't know why there is something instead of nothing. So we can keep asking why this, why that why the other until we have named everything that exists (impossible, of course) and still we will not have an answer. Buy this in now way logically supports the presumption that there is no answer. And I defy you to offer a logical course to that conclusion.

 

[PureX]

What is there to be explored about this possibility that has not been explored already? What are you looking for?

We are looking for the effect that trusting in a specific God-possibility would have on our experience of life. For many humans, this effect can be both profound and positive.

 

[PureX]

Why go beyond just accepting that we don't know why the universe exists, or if there's an answer at all? There's a fundamental trilemma in asking why questions, directly equivalent to asking for proofs.

1. Some kind of circularity of reasons.
2. Infinite regress of reasons.
3. Bottoming out at some 'brute fact' that itself has no reason, but just is.

As Carroll pointed out, the modern view of the universe and the nature of space-time means that there is no obvious dependence on anything else. Before Einstein there seemed to be the obvious question of what started it all, or what was the cause of the universe, but that is no longer something that is needed as the space-time can be self-contained, causeless, and (as a whole) timeless.

Reality isn't under any obligation to provide us with something we, as humans, regard as a satisfactory reason for its existence.

The universe has given us the ability to seek an understanding of itself. It would be logical to assume that we are therefor intended to do that.

And in doing that, we give ourselves an existential purpose to fulfill.

Carroll was a fool to presume that the nature of physicality has anything to do with the question of existential origin and purpose. We humans could learn of and understand every physical mechanism that makes us up, and we would still have no idea from whence we come, or why.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The universe has given us the ability to seek an understanding of itself. It would be logical to assume that we are therefor intended to do that.

That, in itself, is just another teleological assumption. It's easy to prove what you already assume.

And in doing that, we give ourselves an existential purpose to fulfill.

Carroll was a fool to presume that the nature of physicality has anything to do with the question of existential origin and purpose. We humans could learn of and understand every physical mechanism that makes us up, and we would still have no idea from whence we come, or why.

And yet, if I recall, you do think that there is a "why."

 

[ratiocinator]

First, there are answers to the huge majority of 'why' questions that we can ask. So logic would dictate that when we encounter one that we cannot answer, there very likely is an answer, we just don't know what that answer is.

But if every why question has an answer, then there is an infinite regress of questions and answers. There is no answer that we can't ask another why question about.

The universe has given us the ability to seek an understanding of itself. It would be logical to assume that we are therefor intended to do that.

Talk about question begging! The universe intentionally gave us the ability, so there is intent.

Carroll was a fool to presume that the nature of physicality has anything to do with the question of existential origin and purpose.

I think it's important to emphasise the self-contained nature of the current view of the physical universe not least because arguments that start with the physical universe and point to things like 'first cause' and the like, abound. You've even used them yourself by trying to argue from three options of 'poofing' from nothing, eternal past, or God. You also were talking about something happening to nothing to make something earlier in this thread, so Carroll's point appears not to have got through to you yet.

We humans could learn of and understand every physical mechanism that makes us up, and we would still have no idea from whence we come, or why.

And the "from whence we came" implies similar. I actually agree that it's a different problem. The universe may be a self-contained whole that doesn't require anything else, but we can still ask why it exists, rather than something else or nothing. The problem is that we don't know and may well never know.

 

[Koldo]

This is wrong on several levels.

First, there are answers to the huge majority of 'why' questions that we can ask. So logic would dictate that when we encounter one that we cannot answer, there very likely is an answer, we just don't know what that answer is.

No matter what answer you give, it is always possible to keep asking 'why'.

We don't know why there is something instead of nothing. So we can keep asking why this, why that why the other until we have named everything that exists (impossible, of course) and still we will not have an answer. Buy this in now way logically supports the presumption that there is no answer. And I defy you to offer a logical course to that conclusion.

There couldn't be an answer for that question.
To ask why there is something rather than nothing is to ask the reason behind existence, but the cause of existence, if it existed, would have to precede existence itself. And whatever precedes existence simply doesn't exist nor did it ever exist, by definition. Therefore, there isn't a reason for existence.

 

[Koldo]

We are looking for the effect that trusting in a specific God-possibility would have on our experience of life. For many humans, this effect can be both profound and positive.

I have never come across any deist that would describe the effect of God in their lives as profound and positive. It is theists that proclaim that, with all the baggage that comes with their beliefs.

 

[PureX]

That, in itself, is just another teleological assumption. It's easy to prove what you already assume.

Nevertheless, it's a logical assumption. As opposed to the illogical assumption that if I don't know the answer, there is no answer to be known.

And yet, if I recall, you do think that there is a "why."

Of course there is a 'why'.

 

[PureX]

But if every why question has an answer, then there is an infinite regress of questions and answers.

No there isn't. They run out when we run out of subjects to ask why about.

There is no answer that we can't ask another why question about.

How about, why are you asking why?

Talk about question begging! The universe intentionally gave us the ability, so there is intent.

If the universe had given me three arms, it would be logical that I use all three of them. What part of this are you arguing with?

I think it's important to emphasise the self-contained nature of the current view of the physical universe not least because arguments that start with the physical universe and point to things like 'first cause' and the like, abound. You've even used them yourself by trying to argue from three options of 'poofing' from nothing, eternal past, or God. You also were talking about something happening to nothing to make something earlier in this thread, so Carroll's point appears not to have got through to you yet.

You are a materialist that cannot grasp ideas that are not grounded in physicality. That's all that's going on here.

And the "from whence we came" implies similar. I actually agree that it's a different problem. The universe may be a self-contained whole that doesn't require anything else, but we can still ask why it exists, rather than something else or nothing. The problem is that we don't know and may well never know.

There can be no self-generated, self-contained anything. It defies the foundations of logic. So we are forced by logic to inquire about what generated what is, and why. Even if it is now self-contained and perpetual. Or we must relinquish logic. The fact that we can not provide an answer doesn't change or negate that logical necessity of the question. So if we relinquish the question, we are relinquishing the logic that makes us ask it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Nevertheless, it's a logical assumption.

No. There is no logical content at all. It's nothing but an assumption of intent and purpose.

 

[PureX]

I have never come across any deist that would describe the effect of God in their lives as profound and positive. It is theists that proclaim that, with all the baggage that comes with their beliefs.

That's quite irrelevant. Faith in this mystery source aids and sustains billions of your fellow humans. And the fact that they can all tailor that mystery source to better suit their own natures just makes it that much more effective. So your quibbles over who chooses what concept or that you don't think it's sufficiently effective or positive is not pertinent.

 

[PureX]

No. There is no logical content at all. It's nothing but an assumption of intent and purpose.

Intent is your boogeyman to fight with, not mine. I'm a Taoist, so it makes no nevermind to me.

 

[ratiocinator]

No there isn't. They run out when we run out of subjects to ask why about.

How can that happen? If you give me any answer to anything, I can ask why that thing.

How about, why are you asking why?

Because I want to. Because I'm curious? Is there a point you were actually trying to make or did you just think that was a clever answer? It wasn't.

If the universe had given me three arms, it would be logical that I use all three of them. What part of this are you arguing with?

You brought in intentionality. We have sophisticated brains, which we can, and do use. There is no reason at all to think that anything we can think of to question is because we are intended to find the answer.

You are a materialist that cannot grasp ideas that are not grounded in physicality. That's all that's going on here.

There can be no self-generated, self-contained anything.

Which just emphasises that you don't understand the point. There is no "self-generated" about it. There is no generation. The space-time didn't "come from" anything. It just is. That's why the physical universe is self-contained and has no obvious need for anything else.

The view of (space-)time that modern science accepts is counterintuitive and can be difficult to grasp, but you (and so many other theists and those who cling to intuition) don't seem to even want to try to understand.

So we are forced by logic to inquire about what generated what is, and why. Or we must relinquish logic.

No, you just need to relinquish your precious human inuition, and accept the perfectly self-consistent, mathematically (and therefore logically) well formed modern view, in which the question of "generation" (a time-based concept) does not arise.

Don't get me wrong, there is still a question, and you can have your mystery of existance, it's just that there is no point in looking for some logical gap in the current notion of physical existance that you can point to and say "this can't be explained in physical terms". There is no something happening to nothing to make a something, there is no relevance to whether time is finite or infinite in the past (it doesn't matter either way).

All you have is a "why does this exist, not something else or nothing?", not "where did all this come from?", or "how was it generated?"

 

[PureX]

How can that happen? If you give me any answer to anything, I can ask why that thing.


Because I want to. Because I'm curious? Is there a point you were actually trying to make or did you just think that was a clever answer? It wasn't.


You brought in intentionality. We have sophisticated brains, which we can, and do use. There is no reason at all to think that anything we can think of to question is because we are intended to find the answer.

Which just emphasises that you don't understand the point. There is no "self-generated" about it. There is no generation. The space-time didn't "come from" anything. It just is. That's why the physical universe is self-contained and has no obvious need for anything else.

The view of (space-)time that modern science accepts is counterintuitive and can be difficult to grasp, but you (and so many other theists and those who cling to intuition) don't seem to even want to try to understand.


No, you just need to relinquish your precious human inuition, and accept the perfectly self-consistent, mathematically (and therefore logically) well formed modern view, in which the question of "generation" (a time-based concept) does not arise.

Don't get me wrong, there is still a question, and you can have your mystery of existance, it's just that there is no point in looking for some logical gap in the current notion of physical existance that you can point to and say "this can't be explained in physical terms". There is no something happening to nothing to make a something, there is no relevance to whether time is finite or infinite in the past (it doesn't matter either way).

All you have is a "why does this exist, not something else or nothing?", not "where did all this come from?", or "how was it generated?"

You are not capable of having this conversation. Your head is stuck in "science" (materialism) and cannot think past it.

None of this is about space or time or matter or energy. It's about possibility and impossibility. About nothing or something. But you're not comprehending this because it's metaphysical, and not physical. It's philosophy and not science. And your materialist worldview cannot reach into that realm.