Teleological Argument (Aquinas)

[Polymath257]

The entire physical world is an illusion. All of our knowledge of Quantum Physics has lead to this inescapable fact.

No, quantum physics says no such thing.

The mind is a priori. It contains a wealth of a priori knowledge.

Well, it is a priori for epistemology but not for ontology. minds are needed for knowledge, but not for existence.

Without God the world would be void of meaning.

I disagree. But meaning is something that comes from minds, not from the nature of things.

And the objects around us would appear false. God is a necessary being. Anyone who does not know this, such as yourself, is experiencing a persistent delusion born out of a materialistic illusion.

Well, that is your claim. But all you have done is make claims with no actual evidence, argument, or reason. Having things 'appear false' is not a reason.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And I see no reason to think that is the case. Why would a mind be required for regular behavior? Isn't simply having properties enough?

Definite properties would lead to regular interactions which leads to regular behaviors, right? The cycles are simply the fact that there is feedback (which mathematically leads to cyclic behavior)..

A mind is required because these regularities point to ends. Yes, this entails definitive properties (appropriate form), otherwise the goal wouldn't be inherent and there wouldn't be capability to realize the goal. “Upon the form follows an inclination to the end … for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends towards that which is in accordance with its form” (Aquinas).

 

[RestlessSoul]

But why would a mind be required at all? Nothing you have said forces there to be a mind for something to exist? Maybe to be known to exist requires a mind, but not existence.

Well yes, a mind is required, in order for something to be known to exist. Why then, do we assume that physical objects or processes, such as stars and galaxies, are more fundamental than the consciousness required to perceive their existence?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Humans are a part of nature, and the sperm and egg that combines to become human; lacks intelligence; my argument stands.

Once more, for the 5th way the regular "behaviour" of abiological objects suffices.

 

[Ponder This]

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

You've said something inherently nonsensical by claiming that the idea of what happens to that gas has no relation to what happens to that gas. The relation is self-evident: that what happens to that gas is understood through the idea of what happens to that gas..

An idea about a star is not a star, though.

Yes, that's laid out clearly. The argument presented did not say that the idea about a star is a star. Rather the argument claims that the idea about a star is not the same as a star. A clear distinction is made that the idea about a star is in the mental order of being, whereas a star itself is in the physical order of being. The argument depends upon this fundamental fact: that the idea about a star is not a star. The argument would fail if it were the case that the idea about a star was a star.

 

[Polymath257]

A mind is required because these regularities point to ends. Yes, this entails definitive properties (appropriate form), otherwise the goal wouldn't be inherent and there wouldn't be capability to realize the goal. “Upon the form follows an inclination to the end … for everything, in so far as it is in act, acts and tends towards that which is in accordance with its form” (Aquinas).

Why would having properties imply a mind? Regularities only require properties, not minds; not intentions.

 

[Polymath257]

You've said something inherently nonsensical by claiming that the idea of what happens to that gas has no relation to what happens to that gas. The relation is self-evident: that what happens to that gas is understood through the idea of what happens to that gas..

But the understanding has no causal effect on that gas. So no, what happens to the gas is not influenced at all by the *idea* of the gas.

The gas exists. it has properties (like gravity) and those properties mean it behaves in certain regular ways (like collapsing and forming stars).

Yes, that's laid out clearly. The argument presented did not say that the idea about a star is a star. Rather the argument claims that the idea about a star is not the same as a star. A clear distinction is made that the idea about a star is in the mental order of being, whereas a star itself is in the physical order of being. The argument depends upon this fundamental fact: that the idea about a star is not a star. The argument would fail if it were the case that the idea about a star was a star.

And the idea of a star only exists in minds and has no causal connection to the actual behavior of those stars.

 

[Ostronomos]

No, quantum physics says no such thing.

Well, it is a priori for epistemology but not for ontology. minds are needed for knowledge, but not for existence.

I disagree. But meaning is something that comes from minds, not from the nature of things.

Well, that is your claim. But all you have done is make claims with no actual evidence, argument, or reason. Having things 'appear false' is not a reason.

You are hopelessly ignorant about Quantum Ontology. Or rather, the recent findings regarding Quantum Ontology.

It is now said that the distinction between the quantum and classical levels is superficial. Scientists are now on the verge of understanding the mysterious Quantum-Classical divide.

You are also hopelessly ignorant about the fact the Quantum theory is a non-materialistic science. And points to the simulation principle. I assume the very thought of reality as a simulation is difficult to accept for you. No wonder you wallow in ignorance and confusion.

No offense for pointing out your flaws. But we've gone around this merry go-round numerous times, and we're still back at square one.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why would having properties imply a mind? Regularities only require properties, not minds; not intentions.

Goal-directedness is evident because a natural object or a process has a tendency to produce a specific effect or range of effects. As Aquinas said: “Every agent acts for an end: otherwise one thing would not follow more than another from the action of the agent, unless it were by chance" (Summa Teologiae).

 

[Polymath257]

Goal-directedness is evident because a natural object or a process has a tendency to produce a specific effect or range of effects. As Aquinas said: “Every agent acts for an end: otherwise one thing would not follow more than another from the action of the agent, unless it were by chance" (Summa Teologiae).

Aquinas was working under Aristotelian metaphysics, which we *know* is wrong in many different ways. In particular, the idea of a 'final cause' is no longer taken seriously in philosophical circles unless there is a previous intelligence known to be involved. Simple patterned behavior (you have no shown goal-directedness) is not enough to demonstrate that an intelligence is active.

 

[Polymath257]

You are hopelessly ignorant about Quantum Ontology. Or rather, the recent findings regarding Quantum Ontology.

It is now said that the distinction between the quantum and classical levels is superficial. Scientists are now on the verge of understanding the mysterious Quantum-Classical divide.

You are also hopelessly ignorant about the fact the Quantum theory is a non-materialistic science. And points to the simulation principle. I assume the very thought of reality as a simulation is difficult to accept for you. No wonder you wallow in ignorance and confusion.

No offense for pointing out your flaws. But we've gone around this merry go-round numerous times, and we're still back at square one.

No, quantum theory is NOT non-materialistic. If anything, it *defines* what it means to be 'material'.

Reality as a simulation is a simple enough concept, but there is absolutely no evidence for it. And certainly quantum theory has no bearing on such.

The biggest problem people have with understanding quantum theory is that they hold on to outdated metaphysical principles that are known to be invalid. For example, any attempt to understand how reality works in terms of classic particles and 'bouncing off' will inevitably lead to confusion.

 

[PearlSeeker]

In particular, the idea of a 'final cause' is no longer taken seriously in philosophical circles unless there is a previous intelligence known to be involved.

That's not true. Teleology is featured prominently in current philosophical debates.

Google Učenjak

scholar.google.com

 

[Ponder This]

But the understanding has no causal effect on that gas.

Quite so. The argument says:

4. But an effect cannot exist in real being prior to the action of the cause, because then the effect would be prior to its cause, which is absurd

You are now in agreement with the argument!
QED

 

[Polymath257]

That's not true. Teleology is featured prominently in current philosophical debates.

Google Učenjak

scholar.google.com

Interesting that the articles linked to are trying to find alternatives to teleology and find ways to correct student tendencies towards such mistaken thinking. maybe you should read the articles you link to?

Oh, and there is the discussion concerning the *historical* views about teleology by various philosophers. Again, this is not taken seriously by *modern* philosophers outside of biology.

 

[Polymath257]

Quite so. The argument says:

You are now in agreement with the argument!
QED

So stars can exist without there being an idea of a star. So no minds are required for stars to come into existence.

QED.

 

[Madsaac]

You are hopelessly ignorant about Quantum Ontology. Or rather, the recent findings regarding Quantum Ontology.

It is now said that the distinction between the quantum and classical levels is superficial. Scientists are now on the verge of understanding the mysterious Quantum-Classical divide.

You are also hopelessly ignorant about the fact the Quantum theory is a non-materialistic science. And points to the simulation principle. I assume the very thought of reality as a simulation is difficult to accept for you. No wonder you wallow in ignorance and confusion.

No offense for pointing out your flaws. But we've gone around this merry go-round numerous times, and we're still back at square one.

Yes, science doesn’t fully understand Quantum theory.

But are you saying that there is something else that can explain it better? Maybe something super natural?

Please enlighten us

And what about consciousness? Same deal?

 

[Madsaac]

Well yes, a mind is required, in order for something to be known to exist. Why then, do we assume that physical objects or processes, such as stars and galaxies, are more fundamental than the consciousness required to perceive their existence?

Is it simply because unlike physics, science cannot fully explain consciousness yet?

Won’t be long and unfortunately all hope will be lost

However, I do hope this is wrong, I would love for something mysterious to be present. Probably the closest thing to god I would ever get to.

 

[Polymath257]

A mind is required because these regularities point to ends.

This is the leap I don’t see. Why would regularities imply “ends”, in other words, intentions?

It seems to me that intentions require minds that in turn require regularities to even exist. Regularities simply require things have properties.

The opposite of chaos is not intention.

 

[wellwisher]

But the argument is trying to make the case that order requires intelligence. If it looks like regular motion of a planet can be explained by gravity, Aquinas is claiming that intelligence must be behind gravity for it to create such regular motion.

IOW, it's like someone with extreme pareidolia assuming that everyone else has it and that it's about external nature instead of how he views it.

The better place to focus, to answer this question is; how did human consciousness and intelligence form from natural laws like gravity, electromagnetic force, etc? For example, human intelligence and consciousness can think both in terms of physical laws as well as fiction. Fiction is not exactly part of natural laws, since it can drastically depart from natural laws. In fiction, trees can talk. The concept of God cannot be define by just natural laws. How can we think of such a thing that is not connected to natural reality, based on known science?

Innovation, such as the first computer, did not form naturally from natural laws. It involved human intelligence, looking beyond what could be extrapolated by natural laws. It added new man made laws; applied science. This is an example of human intelligence defining why the computer does what it does. it still uses the laws of physics, but in a directed way, that is not natural to nature. It was deliberate and not random. It evolved not to suit the environment; no sense of direction, but rather evolved in the direction of improving utility.

Evolution has a hard time explaining how the hardware for the first the replicators appeared. They assume these appeared to get the story going. It is too complex for human intelligence, using only logical and natural assumptions, so chance is used to explain how they appear. Yet, once it happens; first replicators, it triggered a new branch of physical reality called life. It loosely like a white hole in the universe spewing out matter, from another dimension, and from that, all types of secondary effects begin to happen that needed that initial creation.

That brings us to the Big Bang, and the initial causes that defined the current laws of physics. At one point in time, the current laws of physics did not yet exist. They may have had the potential to exist within time and space, but likei innovation, they needed some form of consciousness to make an initial cause.

Innovation does not leave things to chance, which is why it is called intelligence. Intelligence is more deliberate than just chance. The acorn growing into an oak tree is not by chance, but follows the deliberate path of an intelligent design. Statistical reality is not an intelligent design, since it leave things to chance, which adds fiction to the deliberate rational paths of natural reality. This is humanly possible, but not natural. That would make it a tool or innovation, but not part of natural design. It is intelligent way to go forward when intelligence cannot see; black box.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Interesting that the articles linked to are trying to find alternatives to teleology and find ways to correct student tendencies towards such mistaken thinking. maybe you should read the articles you link to?

Oh, and there is the discussion concerning the *historical* views about teleology by various philosophers. Again, this is not taken seriously by *modern* philosophers outside of biology.

Yes, the articles in this search engine are mostly about biology that still has hard time to get rid of teleology... An example of a major philosopher that takes teleology seriously is Thomas Nagel...