A Teleological Argument Reloaded

[IWantGod]

You made an assertion and i pointed it out. Anything else you imagine is happening here is just a fantasy i’m sorry to say.

 

[IWantGod]

There is an implication in this statement, whether you realize it or not, that there’s a point where physical laws don’t exist, and there’s a point where they do. If what you meant to say was that physical laws have no existence at all, then you need to reword premise No. 1.

Despite what you think it implies, in the context of actual beings, without physical behavior there is no actual being that can be referred to as the laws of physics or as having physical laws. Physical laws are just descriptions of how things behave. Outside of that, physical laws are meaningless in the context of existing things.

 

[IWantGod]

You didn’t place the premise in any context, perhaps you should have. It may have avoided any confusion. Perhaps you can go back a reword premise No. 1, and we can begin again.

Nobody else seemed to have a problem understanding the context in which i was arguing, accept for you. In any case i think i have sufficiently explained my intentions.

 

[IWantGod]

Your intentions seem to be, not to make corrections when someone points out that they’re warranted.

Perhaps that’s because i don’t think they are warranted. But if somebody does not understand what i mean i always try my best to explain.

 

[IWantGod]

But if you really valued other people’s (name removed by moderator)ut, then you would take it to heart, and make changes where appropriate. It makes me think that you aren’t really looking for constructive (name removed by moderator)ut.

If that where true, i wouldn’t have bothered in explaining my position. But the point is, i don’t think the first premise is flawed. I think it’s your idea of physical laws that is to blame for your opinion.

I’m not perfect, but one person saying that premise one is flawed is not enough.

 

[Wesrock]

IWantGod:

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.

Of course physical laws aren’t beings. They’re descriptors, whether they’re describing an actual physical reality or merely a possible reality. In either case, if the first cause knows them, then they’re descriptors and they exist as such. Which according to your first premise means that the reality that they describe must also exist.

Lions could go extinct tomorrow. Yet people would still have knowledge of them. We make a distinction between knowledge of lions and them actually existing. People having knowledge of lions doesn’t mean lions actually exist.

 

[Wesrock]

And laws of nature aren’t things in themselves, but descriptions of relationships between things or natures. Yes, the truths of these relationships and all other real and possible relationships exist in the first cause, but the point is that they are not things in themselves acting upon other things.

 

[IWantGod]

IWantGod has for some time now, been attempting to formulate a logical argument for the existence of an intelligent first cause. As such he keeps refining and modifying it. I’m simply pointing out that as a sound argument it still needs modification and clarification if he expects it to be a convincing argument. You can’t just expect people to accept a poorly presented argument, and then attempt to clarify later. It can’t just make sense to you, it needs to make sense to skeptics as well. In which case clarity matters.

Again, this is just an assertion. Assertions don’t convince people either, unless they are delusional.

 

[IWantGod]

Pointing out that somebody is evidently making assertions, hardly requires brilliance. Just a mind of sound judgement.

 

[IWantGod]

I was simply pointing out that that assertion is flawed

It’s not flawed. It just means, when taking into question the ontology of something, that physical laws are not beings in and of themselves…and the following from that same premise clarifies this…

they do not have a reality of their own. Physical laws are just a description of how physical things behave once they exist…

 

[IWantGod]

So simply take this part off and reword it,

Why? It’s a metaphysical argument.

 

[IWantGod]

I give up, if you don’t want to change it, then don’t change it. It’s perfect.

You haven’t given me any real reason to change it.

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…

Taken together, it doesn’t take genius to decipher the intention behind the words. Could it be said another way? Sure. Is there a flaw in what is being said? I don’t think so. I think the error is in your judgement. I think you are creating a problem where there is none.

People often misinterpret arguments, but that isn’t necessarily a sign that there is a problem with the actual arguments, but rather people often bring their own presumptions into the debate and end up making straw-men.

In any case, i explained what i meant, because you seemed to require further explanation. Having done that, you still can’t refute the argument.

 

[Wesrock]

I think Lisa is hung up on the first part of the sentence, “without physical reality, physical laws do not exist.” A person who doesn’t have background in this or know where you’re going might think that the converse is then true, “with physical reality, physical laws do exist.” The converse doesn’t necessarily follow, I agree, and you do clarify it, but you and I have the added benefit of background knowledge here. Once somebody has the mistaken idea in their head, they might not realize they misunderstand it. They start off with the wrong impression.

 

[IWantGod]

I accept that.

 

[IWantGod]

1. Physical laws are not beings; 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.

 

[IWantGod]

Then don’t. I don’t know what you expect me to say.

 

[IWantGod]

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

This premise follows from what was said at the beginning of the OP…

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.

 

[IWantGod]

Then i can only assume that you are not really interested in the discussion and the whole time you was just trolling. Yes goodbye.

 

[IWantGod]

Okay, I lied. But rather than get into a lengthy discussion, I’m just going to say that I think that you should take the “once they exist” part, off of that sentence.

Are you not going to explain why?

 

[IWantGod]

Nope. But I’m pretty sure that Wesrock can figure it out.

If that’s the case then i will only respond to Wesrock from now on. He seems to be genuinely interested in the discussions he involves himself in. Not to mention he doesn’t have any sign of malicious intent in the things he writes.