Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Polymath257]

This is an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, since by definition you cannot point at any unobserved entity, concept or object, either real or imagined.

Stars existed before humans and were unobserved but still existed.

 

[Ostronomos]

Stars existed before humans and were unobserved but still existed.

They were an assumption before they were observed.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Stars existed before humans and were unobserved but still existed.

They were unobserved by humans, certainly.

 

[RestlessSoul]

They were an assumption before they were observed.

Or a probability

 

[Polymath257]

They were an assumption before they were observed.

Not true. When Galileo first turned a telescope to the sky, NOBODY expected there to be stars that were never seen before.

Most galaxies we have observed were not even an assumption prior to observation.

They were unobserved by humans, certainly.

And we have no reason to think they were observed by anyone else.

For that matter, we know there were stars before there was life, so those stars could not have been observed until life arose. But they still existed.

I find this whole argument to be incredibly strange. You really think that for something to exist it has to be observed? Why would you think that?

Remember that there is a HUGE difference between existing and someone *knowing* of that existence.

Ontology vs epistemology.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not true. When Galileo first turned a telescope to the sky, NOBODY expected there to be stars that were never seen before.

Most galaxies we have observed were not even an assumption prior to observation.


And we have no reason to think they were observed by anyone else.

For that matter, we know there were stars before there was life, so those stars could not have been observed until life arose. But they still existed.

I find this whole argument to be incredibly strange. You really think that for something to exist it has to be observed? Why would you think that?

Remember that there is a HUGE difference between existing and someone *knowing* of that existence.

Ontology vs epistemology.

Actually, no, I don’t necessarily think that for something to exist it has to be observed. But I do believe that there is no way to define reality independently of how we choose to look at it. And this is more than just a matter of our subjective perceptions of objective reality, because it isn’t only the observer which is affected by the act of observation, it’s the object also.

If the act of observation changes in some way the thing we are looking at - and quantum contextuality says it does - then it no longer makes sense to envisage objective reality as something with fixed properties existing independently from the observer. Observation is not neutral, it changes both the observer and the object.

Here’s an extract from a lecture Christopher Fuchs gave at Caltech in 2004;

“I think the greatest lesson quantum theory holds for us is that when two pieces of the world come together, they give birth. They give birth to facts in a way not so unlike the romantic notion of parenthood: That a child is more than the sum total of her parents, an entity unto herself with untold potential for reshaping the world. Add a new piece to a puzzle - not to it’s beginning or end or edges, but somewhere deep in it’s middle - and all the extant pieces must be rejigged or recut, to make a new, but different, whole.”

 

[Ostronomos]

Actually, no, I don’t necessarily think that for something to exist it has to be observed. But I do believe that there is no way to define reality independently of how we choose to look at it. And this is more than just a matter of our subjective perceptions of objective reality, because it isn’t only the observer which is affected by the act of observation, it’s the object also.

If the act of observation changes in some way the thing we are looking at - and quantum contextuality says it does - then it no longer makes sense to envisage objective reality as something with fixed properties existing independently from the observer. Observation is not neutral, it changes both the observer and the object.

Here’s an extract from a lecture Christopher Fuchs gave at Caltech in 2004;

“I think the greatest lesson quantum theory holds for us is that when two pieces of the world come together, they give birth. They give birth to facts in a way not so unlike the romantic notion of parenthood: That a child is more than the sum total of her parents, an entity unto herself with untold potential for reshaping the world. Add a new piece to a puzzle - not to it’s beginning or end or edges, but somewhere deep in it’s middle - and all the extant pieces must be rejigged or recut, to make a new, but different, whole.”

Yes, yes.

By our very existence we become creators of possibility.

 

[Madsaac]

Yes, yes.

By our very existence we become creators of possibility.

No, isn't it, by the way of our consciousness, we become creators of possibility.

Animals exist but don't create possibilities.

Things that are objectively true, have always been and always will be objectively true. (The large majority of objectively true things)

 

[Madsaac]

Actually, no, I don’t necessarily think that for something to exist it has to be observed

I think we have to have a link of some sort to make this claim, an objective understanding of some sort, truth, facts, because nothing exists until we know about it or see it. For example, there may be life on other planets because we understand physics, biology and so on. However, if we didn't have this objective knowledge then aliens certainly do not exist.

If the act of observation changes in some way the thing we are looking at - and quantum contextuality says it does - then it no longer makes sense to envisage objective reality as something with fixed properties existing independently from the observer. Observation is not neutral, it changes both the observer and the object.

Are you saying that objective truths/realities can change?

Do you have any examples, please.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Are you saying that objective truths/realities can change?

Do you have any examples, please.

Relational quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

 

[RestlessSoul]

@Madsaac , see also

On participatory realism

“Participatory realism recognises that there is a world out there, it simply insists that we participate in building it. Because the process of inference it describes is still constrained by the structure and states of the target system, it is still able to account for scientific knowledge as valid representations of causal structure in the natural world. The reason why it seems so groundbreaking is because it clashes with the intuition that our knowledge is an objective, true representation of the world as it is, detached from the interactions we have with it. Bit as we have seen here, we have no reason to believe such a representation could even exist, let alone be cognitively accessible to a specie of ultra social apes.”

Avel Guenin-Carlut

 

[Ponder This]

huh? How does that follow? At first, there are no stars, then after a while, there are. There is no sense in which stars exist before they form.

Your acknowledgement that

stars will form from the interstellar gas​

exists before the formation of the stars as an idea in your head

- in other words, in the order of mental being.​

This occurs despite the fact that the stars do not yet exist materially

- in the order of physical being.​

 

[Polymath257]

Your acknowledgement that

stars will form from the interstellar gas​

exists before the formation of the stars as an idea in your head

Huh?
No, there were stars that formed by this process long before I existed. In fact, long before humans existed. This process was not an 'idea in someone's head' prior to the formation of the stars. In fact, the first stars formed by this process long before there was life in the universe (and so long before there were conscious beings to have ideas).

- in other words, in the order of mental being.​

This occurs despite the fact that the stars do not yet exist materially

- in the order of physical being.​

Stars did not exist. But the gases did. Gravity acts on those gases, collapsing the cloud and increasing the density, and stars form.

Nobody needed to have an idea of stars for this process to happen. It is simply a property of matter (the gases) that they have gravity and that means the cloud of gas will collapse.

I'm really struggling to understand how you can believe this: why is an idea necessary before an event?

 

[Martin]

What do you think of "the 5th Way" of Aquinas? Summary and explanation of the argument (from Wikipedia):

Summary

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

Explanation

This is also known as the Teleological Argument. However, it is not a "Cosmic Watchmaker" argument from design (see below). Instead, as the 1920 Dominican translation puts it, The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.

The Fifth Way uses Aristotle's final cause. Aristotle argued that a complete explanation of an object will involve knowledge of how it came to be (efficient cause), what material it consists of (material cause), how that material is structured (formal cause), and the specific behaviors associated with the type of thing it is (final cause). 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. The oak tree is the "end" towards which the acorn "points," its disposition, even if it fails to achieve maturity. The aims and goals of intelligent beings is easily explained by the fact that they consciously set those goals for themselves. The implication is that if something has a goal or end towards which it strives, it is either because it is intelligent or because something intelligent is guiding it.

Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Applying Occam's Razor, adding a Watchmaker seems like an unecessary complication.

 

[Ostronomos]

Applying Occam's Razor, adding a Watchmaker seems like an unecessary complication.

You cannot simply dismiss God based on Occam's razor. It overlooks the many qualities of God like Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. Occam's razor is perfectly compatible with a God. Those who use Occam's razor as a counterargument are ignorant about the finer distinctions necessary to unite God with science, both of which are compatible.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Applying Occam's Razor, adding a Watchmaker seems like an unecessary complication.

The argument is different from the Watchmaker analogy.

 

[Kfox]

What do you think of "the 5th Way" of Aquinas? Summary and explanation of the argument (from Wikipedia):

Summary

We see various objects that lack intelligence in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

I think it would be a mistake to assume intelligence can't come from non-intelligence. take the human sperm and egg for example; though not intelligent, they will combine in a way allowing them to grow into something that can become the most intelligent thing in the known universe.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think it would be a mistake to assume intelligence can't come from non-intelligence. take the human sperm and egg for example; though not intelligent, they will combine in a way allowing them to grow into something that can become the most intelligent thing in the known universe.

This is completely irrelevant. The 5th Way is about various objects in nature "that lack intelligence".

 

[Ponder This]

Huh?
No, there were stars that formed by this process long before I existed. In fact, long before humans existed. This process was not an 'idea in someone's head' prior to the formation of the stars. In fact, the first stars formed by this process long before there was life in the universe (and so long before there were conscious beings to have ideas).

To be clear, you claimed:

For example, gravity acting on large collections of interstellar gas will inevitably lead to the formation of stars even though no stars are there before hand.

Such large collections of interstellar gas do exist now and the stars they will form do not yet exist now.
But the idea exists now, in your mind.
This idea obviously exists now and those stars obviously do not yet exist.
While your existence is not necessary for the idea to exist (allowing the idea itself to exist prior to your existence), your existence has provided evidence of the existence of the idea.

I hope this clears up your confusion!

 

[Polymath257]

To be clear, you claimed:

Such large collections of interstellar gas do exist now and the stars they will form do not yet exist now.
But the idea exists now, in your mind.

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

This idea obviously exists now and those stars obviously do not yet exist.
While your existence is not necessary for the idea to exist (allowing the idea itself to exist prior to your existence), your existence has provided evidence of the existence of the idea.

But for that idea to exist, there have to be living beings that have minds. There were none for the first generation of stars.

The ideas exist because there are (now) minds. But the gases and other stars existed long before ideas existed.

I hope this clears up your confusion!

Nope. The existence of the stars is in no way dependent on the existence of ideas about those stars. I fail to see why you think ideas are prior to existence.