A Teleological Argument Reloaded

[STT]

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.

The point that I am trying to make is that physical behavior of any entity can be understood in term of its constitutes, parts. Parts have a set of properties and behave accordingly based on these properties, mass, charge, etc. The question is how could you deduce from this that first cause is intelligent?

 

[IWantGod]

The point that I am trying to make is that physical behavior of any entity can be understood in term of its constitutes, parts.

It’s irrelevant. Things just so happen to behave in particular ways. We find them that way. There is no necessity involved.

If they began to exist, then their behavior is ultimately determined by that which created them.

 

[STT]

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.

I asked for a couple of properties.

 

[STT]

It’s irrelevant. Things just so happen to behave in particular ways. We find them that way. There is no necessity involved.

It simply doesn’t follow that first cause is intelligent because physical entities behave in specific way. They could behave other way.

 

[IWantGod]

I asked for a couple of properties.

That you refuse to understand will not get what you demand.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

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.

We wouldn’t say God has no properties.

But the more important point is that something with no impact, no act, nothing to be observed or experienced, is equivalent to non-existence. That is not the case with this conception of God.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

It’s irrelevant. Things just so happen to behave in particular ways. We find them that way. There is no necessity involved.

It simply doesn’t follow that first cause is intelligent because physical entities behave in specific way. They could behave other way.

That’s precisely the point. They behave one (set of) way(s) and not any other way.

 

[STT]

That’s precisely the point. They behave one (set of) way(s) and not any other way.

The world was different if they behave other way. That is the only conclusion.

 

[STT]

But the more important point is that something with no impact, no act, nothing to be observed or experienced, is equivalent to non-existence. That is not the case with this conception of God.

I can buy that God exist for sake of argument. What I don’t understand is that how one can conclude that He is intelligent.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

But the more important point is that something with no impact, no act, nothing to be observed or experienced, is equivalent to non-existence. That is not the case with this conception of God.

I can buy that God exist for sake of argument. What I don’t understand is that how one can conclude that He is intelligent.

What do you mean by intelligent?

 

[STT]

What do you mean by intelligent?

Simply knows. Why first cause should know things?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What do you mean by intelligent?

Simply knows. Why first cause should know things?

Well, I have a different argument for that, presented elsewhere already, but this topic is specifically on using the teleological argument for God’s intelligence, so I won’t distract from that. @IWantGod’s argument does work, but I’ll see if I can expand on it in my own terms later to defend it.

 

[STT]

Well, I have a different argument for that, presented elsewhere already, but this topic is specifically on using the teleological argument for God’s intelligence, so I won’t distract from that. @IWantGod’s argument does work, but I’ll see if I can expand on it in my own terms later to defend it.

I will be waiting to hear from you.

 

[IWantGod]

Now if the first cause is necessary, and the first cause is intelligent, such that it it knows the laws of physics, then the laws of physics are also necessary.

How does this show that physical laws are a necessary attribute of reality, and how does this disprove my argument if you are right. In any case an intelligent first cause is required since you said

Now if the first cause is necessary, and the first cause is intelligent, such that it it knows the laws of physics, .

Thus you stated that an intelligent knower is required for the existence of physical laws regardless of whether they are necessary or not. (in any case there is no reason to think that an intelligence cannot create the laws of physics and know them, if by that one only means that God intends physical reality to behave in a particular way.)

If there is no physical reality and no intelligent un-caused cause, then how could one logically infer the existence physical laws?

I just don’t think you are very good at thinking these things through, and that you should be more humble in the future.

 

[IWantGod]

Again, it’s your conclusion. I’m just pointing out that your conclusion has major ramifications for your premises.

You haven’t pointed out any contradiction. You made an Ad hominem attack, and then you asserted that physical laws are a necessary attribute of an intelligent un-caused cause because in the first place you have a faulty understanding of what a physical law is, insomuch as you are treating it like being.

And neither have you proven that any of the premises are wrong much less premise one. The argument intends to prove that physical things behave the way they do because an intelligent being intends them to behave that way. Without that intentionality physical objects would not behave in any way at all much less exist. That’s what a law is.

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 just a description of how physical objects behave. The rest of the argument is geared to why they are behaving that way if physical laws are not a being in and of themselves.

 

[IWantGod]

Is it possible for an intelligent first cause not to know the laws of physics?

What relevance does that have to the argument. The point is physical laws are not beings, but rather they are the intentions of an intelligent being. A thing behaves a particular way because God intends it to behave that way.

 

[IWantGod]

Of course physical laws aren’t beings.

Then your argument has failed. Physical things either behave the way they do because an intelligent being intends them to behave that way, or to speak of physical laws at all is meaningless.

 

[IWantGod]

Assertions are not arguments.

 

[TheOldColonel]

I find this strikingly similar to Teleological Argument: The Final Battle 2 (Redux) Director’s Cut

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[IWantGod]

Which according to your first premise means that the reality that they describe must also exist.

Lets look at the first premise, and ignore your straw-man.

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…

In other-words they are not beings and thus by itself has no causal effect on the real world.

At this point of the argument, it is not evident that physical behavior is caused by an intelligent being. All that is evident at this point is that without physical reality, there is no actual reality that can be referred to as the laws of physics. Thus premise one is correct.