A Teleological Argument Reloaded

[IWantGod]

This argument begins with the assumption that a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the cause of all things accept for it’s own existence. In other-words, physical reality is dependent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s actual existence.

1. Without physical reality, physical laws do not exist; they do not have a reality of their own. Physical laws are just a description of how physical things behave once they exist…

2. Physical reality began to exist, or at least, it is contingent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s existence.

3. Physical natures act to particular ends. Particular physical processes consistently produce particular physical effects. Excluding the emergence of intelligence within physical nature, physical objects generally act for an end without having any mind about doing so.

4. Because physical beings are not necessary to existence, it can be said that it is also not necessary that any particular nature should have any particular effect. We just happen to find the world behaving in a particular way.

5. Since it is not necessary for physical beings to produce any particular effect, and since physcal beings cannot cause the law of their own behavior, not only must it be true that the uncaused-cause is causing the laws of physics, it must also be true that the uncaused-cause is causing beings to act in a particular way for a very definite end.

6. The only thing that could possibly create unnecessary laws of behavior and define the ends to which each particular thing is in act, is an intelligent will to create, because such an act is not possible without Goal direction or intentionality and is as such intrinsically teleological as a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the intelligent cause of all ontologically unnecessary beings.

 

[Wesrock]

This argument begins with the assumption that a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the cause of all things accept for it’s own existence. In other-words, physical reality is dependent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s actual existence.

1. Without physical reality, physical laws do not exist; they do not have a reality of their own. Physical laws are just a description of how physical things behave once they exist…

2. Physical reality began to exist, or at least, it is contingent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s existence.

3. Physical natures act to particular ends. Particular physical processes consistently produce particular physical effects. Excluding the emergence of intelligence within physical nature, physical objects generally act for an end without having any mind about doing so.

4. Because physical beings are not necessary to existence, it can be said that it is also not necessary that any particular nature should have any particular effect. We just happen to find the world behaving in a particular way.

5. Since it is not necessary for physical beings to produce any particular effect, and since physcal beings cannot cause the law of their own behavior, not only must it be true that the uncaused-cause is causing the laws of physics, it must also be true that the uncaused cause is causing beings to act in a particular way for a very definite end.

6. The only thing that could possibly create unnecessary laws of behavior and define the ends to which each particular thing is in act, is an intelligent will to create, because such an act is not possible without Goal direction or intentionalityand is as such intrinsically teleological as a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the intelligent cause of all ontologically unnecessary beings.

Trying to boost your argument a level. I think your angle is that a First Cause has been proved, but now you’re trying to establish it is intelligent. However, I don’t think you need to start by assuming a first cause at all. It doesn’t need to be embedded in any of the starting points. Rather, the argument itself establishes that there must be a “First Intelligence” on its own, without assuming one.

 

[Wozza]

Is this an attempt to prove that God (the uncaused cause) is intelligent?

 

[IWantGod]

Is this an attempt to prove that God (the uncaused cause) is intelligent?

My argument is that the un-caused cause is intelligent. A-pior, assuming that the un-caused-cause argument succeeds, it would seem that there is no self-evident reason to think that it is intelligent; hence my argument.

 

[IWantGod]

Trying to boost your argument a level. I think your angle is that a First Cause has been proved, but now you’re trying to establish it is intelligent. However, I don’t think you need to start by assuming a first cause at all. It doesn’t need to be embedded in any of the starting points. Rather, the argument itself establishes that there must be a “First Intelligence” on its own, without assuming one.

Could you please give a demonstration of your thoughts? I am grateful for your assistance.

 

[STT]

This argument…

What do you mean with non-physical. Something which has no location, doesn’t occupy any space, has no form and has no property is simply non-existence.

1. Without physical reality, physical laws do not exist; they do not have a reality of their own. Physical laws are just a description of how physical things behave once they exist…

Physical laws are abstract objects which only exists in mind.

2. Physical reality began to exist, or at least, it is contingent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s existence.

Granted.

3. Physical natures act to particular ends. Particular physical processes consistently produce particular physical effects. Excluding the emergence of intelligence within physical nature, physical objects generally act for an end without having any mind about doing so.

They don’t act for a particular end. They act for an available end. Particular end applies only to intelligent being. Moreover, how do you know that physical thing do not have mind. You are physical and have mind.

4. Because physical beings are not necessary to existence, it can be said that it is also not necessary that any particular nature should have any particular effect. We just happen to find the world behaving in a particular way.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say in here.

5. Since it is not necessary for physical beings to produce any particular effect, and since physical beings cannot cause the law of their own behavior, not only must it be true that the uncaused-cause is causing the laws of physics, it must also be true that the uncaused-cause is causing beings to act in a particular way for a very definite end.

That doesn’t follow. Any physical entity has some properties otherwise it is nothing. This means that laws of physics is the result of these properties. Therefore you don’t need an uncaused-cause to cause the laws of physics.

6. The only thing that could possibly create unnecessary laws of behavior and define the ends to which each particular thing is in act, is an intelligent will to create , because such an act is not possible without Goal direction or intentionality and is as such intrinsically teleological as a cause.

That doesn’t follow since it is the result of previous premises.

Conclusion: Therefore, a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the intelligent cause of all ontologically unnecessary beings.

Therefore your conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

[IWantGod]

Something which has no location, doesn’t occupy any space, has no form and has no property is simply non-existence.

Then i guess space is non-existent since it is not located anywhere. I don’t see why there cannot be other natures other than what is physical. You are assuming that if a thing doesn’t have a physical nature, a physical form, than it cannot have existence simply because you cannot imagine anything other than what is physical having a substantial existence. In any case, if it follows that physical reality is a contingent reality your conclusion is necessarily false.

 

[IWantGod]

Physical laws are abstract objects which only exists in mind.

You have to figure out why physical objects consistently behave in particular ways. and since you granted that physical reality began to exist or is contingent, you cannot say that physical reality is ultimately the cause.

 

[STT]

Then i guess space is non-existent since it is not located anywhere. I don’t see why there cannot be other natures other than what is physical. You are assuming that if a thing doesn’t have a physical nature, a physical form, than it cannot have existence simply because you cannot imagine anything other than what is physical having a substantial existence. In any case, if it follows that physical reality is a contingent reality your conclusion is necessarily false.

Space and time are fundamental without them we cannot have any physical reality. Could you please elaborate and tell me what is non-physical?

 

[STT]

You have to figure out why physical objects consistently behave in particular ways. and since you granted that physical reality began to exist or is contingent, you cannot say that physical reality is ultimately the cause.

Physical objects have properties and that dictate how they behave.

 

[IWantGod]

Physical objects have properties and that dictate how they behave.

…and since you granted that physical reality began to exist or is contingent, you cannot say that physical reality is ultimately the cause.

 

[IWantGod]

Could you please elaborate and tell me what is non-physical?

Something that exists, and does not have physical properties.

 

[STT]

…and since you granted that physical reality began to exist or is contingent, you cannot say that physical reality is ultimately the cause.

The point of this thread is to show that the uncaused-cause is intelligent.

 

[IWantGod]

The point of this thread is to show that the uncaused-cause is intelligent.

Yes…

 

[STT]

Something that exists, and does not have physical properties.

Could you please tell a couple of non-physical properties?

 

[STT]

And how that follows?

 

[IWantGod]

And how that follows?

1. Without physical reality, physical laws do not exist; they do not have a reality of their own. Physical laws are just a description of how physical things behave once they exist…

2. Physical reality began to exist, or at least, it is contingent upon the uncaused-cause for it’s existence.

3. Physical natures act to particular ends. Particular physical processes consistently produce particular physical effects. Excluding the emergence of intelligence within physical nature, physical objects generally act for an end without having any mind about doing so.

4. Because physical beings are not necessary to existence, it can be said that it is also not necessary that any particular nature should have any particular effect. We just happen to find the world behaving in a particular way.

5. Since it is not necessary for physical beings to produce any particular effect, and since physcal beings cannot cause the law of their own behavior, not only must it be true that the uncaused-cause is causing the laws of physics, it must also be true that the uncaused-cause is causing beings to act in a particular way for a very definite end.

6. The only thing that could possibly create unnecessary laws of behavior and define the ends to which each particular thing is in act, is an intelligent will to create , because such an act is not possible without Goal direction or intentionality and is as such intrinsically teleological as a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, a non-physical absolutely necessary act of reality exists and is the intelligent cause of all ontologically unnecessary beings.

 

[STT]

I already mentioned that physical evolves to an available end rather a particular end.

 

[IWantGod]

Could you please tell a couple of non-physical properties?

You cannot know deductively what attributes a non-physical cause has and neither can you know deductively that non-physical natures do not exist. However, you can know of it’s nature and existence inductively. You can know that it exists because it’s effect is observable. I can know that it doesn’t have physical limitations or physical dimensions because it is the cause of physical reality, and i know that because physical reality is contingent insomuch as it does not exist neccesarily. And i can know that the un-caused-cause is intelligent because it is the cause of why physical things behave the way they do and have the effects they produce insomuch as it is the cause of their very existence.

 

[IWantGod]

I already mentioned that physical evolves to an available

The fact that a thing can only actualize it’s potential if the opportunity is available is irrelevant. Physical things naturally have a particular way of behaving under different conditions. They have particular effects that become actual under particular conditions. That is what is meant when somebody says that a nature is in act towards a particular end or many particular ends depending on the conditions. Physical things are always doing something and behaving in particular ways. And to deny that would only amount to ignorance. I am not saying anything controversial. I’m speaking about physical reality in general.