A Teleological Argument

[IWantGod]

So… be careful! That sounds dangerously close to coming to assenting to occasionalism! To wit:

You can’t just say that it sounds like occassionalism, you have to demonstrate that it is.

Also if the uncaused cause has caused something to exist, it follows necessarily that the thing it has caused has the nature it has and expresses particular behaviors because the uncaused cause has caused it to exist in that way.

 

[Gorgias]

You can’t just say that it sounds like occassionalism, you have to demonstrate that it is.

Sure I can just say it!

It sounds like occasionalism! And, this approach sounds awful like the straw man that atheists toss like a hand grenade, when they discuss “the problem of evil” – if God created the world, and there’s suffering here, isn’t God responsible for it?

So… is this what you’re suggesting here?

Also if the uncaused cause has caused something to exist, it follows necessarily that the thing it has caused has the nature it has and expresses particular behaviors because the uncaused cause has caused it to exist in that way.

That’s not what you’re trying to prove, though: you’re trying to assert intent, as a means of proving intelligence.

Causation makes sense here. Your assertion in an earlier post that causation implies intent does not.

 

[Wesrock]

This “nature” is an undefined concept. To say that “nature” of an object is what it IS… is about as uninformative as you can get. (In logic it is called tautology.)

Essence is “what a thing is,” but that’s not a tautology, A tautology would be “The essence of this thing is its essence.” Having a term to use to refer to the “whatness” of a thing isn’t a tautology in itself.

This is hilarious. You mean that two and two makes four only because that “uncaused cause” designed it that way?

I disagree with the idea of mathematical objects being “designed,” anyway, but just out of curiousity, are you a mathematical realist or a mathematical nominalist?

 

[Sophia]

Essence is “what a thing is,” but that’s not a tautology, A tautology would be “The essence of this thing is its essence.” Having a term to use to refer to the “whatness” of a thing isn’t a tautology in itself.

If you cannot present the “whatness” of a specific object, you have no argument. To say that “The essence of this thing is what it is” - is a tautology, implied but not expressed. Or the whatness of a thing is its essence - is equally nonsensical. Of course we can see through this nonsense.

I disagree with the idea of mathematical objects being “designed,” anyway, but just out of curiousity, are you a mathematical realist or a mathematical nominalist?

I am a mathematician, period. Of course numbers are not “designed”. They are the ultimate abstraction of objects, when all the specifics are “stripped” and only the quantity remains. Of course mathematics is just a wonderful game, based upon some axioms. It can have some legitimate uses, but that is just a lucky coincidence.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Essence is “what a thing is,” but that’s not a tautology, A tautology would be “The essence of this thing is its essence.” Having a term to use to refer to the “whatness” of a thing isn’t a tautology in itself.

If you cannot present the “whatness” of a specific object, you have no argument. To say that “The essence of this thing is what it is” - is a tautology, implied but not expressed. Or the whatness of a thing is its essence - is equally nonsensical. Of course we can see through this nonsense.

No, it’s not being used as a tautology in that case. “The whatness of a thing is its essence” isn’t being used to give you a definition of the thing in question. It’s being used to give you the definition of the word “essence.” Your logic here would basically say dictionaries or definitions in general are pointless.

As for the whatness of particular objects, we can do fairly well when it comes to mathematical objects. But it’s clearly evident that what this hydrogen molecule is is the same thing as what that hydrogen molecule is, and that what both of those are differs from what a human being is, which is not the same thing as what a shark is. Some things are essentially the same thing, some things are essentially different. There is no claim that we can know or deduce all essences, and one doesn’t need to be able to know all or any essences to see the distinction is evident in the natural world, or to make a distinction between the essence of a thing and the existence of a thing.

Wesrock:

I disagree with the idea of mathematical objects being “designed,” anyway, but just out of curiousity, are you a mathematical realist or a mathematical nominalist?

I am a mathematician, period. Of course numbers are not “designed”. They are the ultimate abstraction of objects, when all the specifics are “stripped” and only the quantity remains. Of course mathematics is just a wonderful game, based upon some axioms. It can have some legitimate uses, but that is just a lucky coincidence.

Hey look, Sophia can dodge! “I am a mathematician, period.” That’s a good one. Simply put, are mathematical objects/relations/constructs just true regardless of whether anyone’s around to think it?

 

[Gorgias]

If you cannot present the “whatness” of a specific object, you have no argument. To say that “The essence of this thing is what it is” - is a tautology, implied but not expressed. Or the whatness of a thing is its essence - is equally nonsensical. Of course we can see through this nonsense.

So, an assertion of equivalence is ‘nonsense’? When I say (a+b)2 = a2+2ab+b2, then I’m spouting nonsense?

mathematics is just a wonderful game , based upon some axioms. It can have some legitimate uses, but that is just a lucky coincidence.

If you can’t see the correspondence between the existence of the axioms in this universe and their application to reality in this universe, then you’re missing the whole point.

Along the same lines: “Of course, the culinary arts are just a wonderful game… their legitimate uses to feed us, though? Just lucky coincidence.”

 

[Sophia]

So, an assertion of equivalence is ‘nonsense’? When I say (a+b)2 = a2+2ab+b2, then I’m spouting nonsense?

We don’t live in an axiomatic environment. Why do I have to repeat just obvious things?

Along the same lines: “Of course, the culinary arts are just a wonderful game… their legitimate uses to feed us, though? Just lucky coincidence.”

Culinary arts are not axiomatic, so your attempt to draw equivalence is “ab ovo usque ad mala” is incorrect.

Simply put, are mathematical objects/relations/constructs just true regardless of whether anyone’s around to think it?

If there are no agents to state them, they do not exist. Just like Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” would cease to exist and all the copies would disappear and no one would remember it.

Mathematical objects (etc.) are “true” within their axiomatic system. It is NOT generally true that “every positive integer can be factored into prime numbers - in one way - if we disregard the order of the factors”.

Abstractions do not exist as ontological objects if there is no one who can “think” them.

Some things are essentially the same thing, some things are essentially different.

Wow. Is that the best you can give?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Simply put, are mathematical objects/relations/constructs just true regardless of whether anyone’s around to think it?

If there are no agents to state them, they do not exist. Just like Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” would cease to exist and all the copies would disappear and no one would remember it.

Mathematical objects (etc.) are “true” within their axiomatic system. It is NOT generally true that “every positive integer can be factored into prime numbers - in one way - if we disregard the order of the factors”.

Abstractions do not exist as ontological objects if there is no one who can “think” them.

Of course they’re abstract. But are they actually true whether or not people think them? Or is it just all in our heads or whatever system we construct? I think I’m leaning towards you being a mathematical nominalist.

Wesrock:

Some things are essentially the same thing, some things are essentially different.

Wow. Is that the best you can give?

Of course not, but your unsubstantial and selective reply is noted.

 

[Sophia]

Of course they’re abstract. But are they actually true whether or not people think them? Or is it just all in our heads or whatever system we construct? I think I’m leaning towards you being a mathematical nominalist.

If something does not exist, then it cannot be declared “true” or “false”. There are many axiomatic systems in mathematics. A theorem in one is true, and in another one is false. Mathematical “truths” are not absolute, they are relative. In a universe without any thinking beings there would be no “Pythagoras theorem”.

Of course not, but your unsubstantial and selective reply is noted.

A post without substance does not merit a detailed reply. Enumerate the essence of a “cow” and the essence of a “horse”.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Of course they’re abstract. But are they actually true whether or not people think them? Or is it just all in our heads or whatever system we construct? I think I’m leaning towards you being a mathematical nominalist.

If something does not exist, then it cannot be declared “true” or “false”. There are many axiomatic systems in mathematics. A theorem in one is true, and in another one is false. Mathematical “truths” are not absolute, they are relative. In a universe without any thinking beings there would be no “Pythagoras theorem”.

What does it mean for something to exist?

Wesrock:

Of course not, but your unsubstantial and selective reply is noted.

Enumerate the essence of a “cow” and the essence of a “horse”.

Why? It has no bearing.

 

[Gorgias]

We don’t live in an axiomatic environment. Why do I have to repeat just obvious things?

We live in an environment that can be modeled by axiomatic systems.

Culinary arts are not axiomatic

Obviously, you’ve never attempted baking…

Culinary arts are not axiomatic, so your attempt to draw equivalence is “ab ovo usque ad mala” is incorrect.

That reminds me: I need to make an apple custard one of these days…

 

[Sophia]

We live in an environment that can be modeled by axiomatic systems.

Even the very good model is deficient in some respect.

Obviously, you’ve never attempted baking…

Well, I cannot claim that I am a master chef, but I am a very competent cook.

What does it mean for something to exist?

Now that is a good point. There is physical existence, limited in space and time. It is directly available to our senses. The abstractions do not exist in the same sense. We can create a descriptor of “conceptual existence”. Something that only “exists” as a thought, a concept. We can come to an agreement and then the concept will gain a “meaning” according to our mutual understanding.

Why? It has no bearing.

It certainly has. It would show me that the concept of essence is sensible.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

What does it mean for something to exist?

Now that is a good point. There is physical existence, limited in space and time. It is directly available to our senses. The abstractions do not exist in the same sense. We can create a descriptor of “conceptual existence”. Something that only “exists” as a thought, a concept. We can come to an agreement and then the concept will gain a “meaning” according to our mutual understanding.

Just want to take a second and highlight the non-falsifiable, non-empirical, reasoned conclusions you’re making. But moving on, perhaps you misunderstand the Realist’s position in regards to abstract objects. When a realist says 1+1=2 exists, they don’t mean it has any location in space or time. They don’t mean it can cause anything. They don’t mean it’s located in some meta-dimension. They just means it’s a truth grounded in objective reality, not just a subjective truth that works in arbitrary systems existing only in human minds. Now, of course you may disagree with the mathematical realist, but the realist doesn’t hold that an “abstract reality” is real in the same way a physical reality is, only that if it’s objectively true, it must be real in some way.

It is real, it exists (says the Realist), but we can make further distinctions after that. It doesn’t mean everything exists or is real in the same way. But neither is non-existent, for if it was non-existent it wouldn’t be true.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Why? It has no bearing.

It certainly has. It would show me that the concept of essence is sensible.

I feel like you’re misconceiving essence as some type of substrate of reality, which is the position German Realists take. It’s not ethereal, or even spiritual. For the Thomist, it’s just a term used for the principle of what a thing is. That there are things that can be grouped as the same type of thing and other things that are a different type of thing. We can be more detailed, and there are plenty who reject essences, but “show me the essence of a dog” just begs the question, as no claim is made as to there being any essence of a dog in particular, or that any essence is knowable. Just that it’s evident that X1 and X2 are the same type of thing, and that Y1 and Z1 are different types of things. Just that there are such things as dogs that can be measured. And further, there might not be a real essence of “dogginess.” Maybe dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, are all the same type of thing with only non-essential differences. Or maybe it’s even more broad than that. Or narrower. That’s not the point. We’re talking first principles here, only that it’s evident there are distinctions in what different things essentially are, not making any claims about a particular essence which would mostly need to be learned by empirical observation, the scientific method.

We could more broadly just go into why a thing has to be defined by (1) what it is and (2) whether it exists, and how 1 and 2 are really distinct principles (and spend pages supporting why). There’s no claim that you could have one without the other. It’s not like Descartes’ res extensa and res cogitans.

 

[Sophia]

When a realist says 1+1=2 exists, they don’t mean it has any location in space or time. They don’t mean it can cause anything. They don’t mean it’s located in some meta-dimension. They just means it’s a truth grounded in objective reality, not just a subjective truth that works in arbitrary systems existing only in human minds.

And as such they are wrong. The proposition 1+1=2 is grounded in the axioms one selects. In ordinary algebra, if the base of the numbering system is at least 3 and if the sign “+” designates regular addition, then it is true - following from the axioms.

If the numbering system is base “2”, then the numeral “2” does not even exist and 1+1=10. If the numbering system is base “1”, then 1+1=11. If the sign “+” designates addition in Boolean algebra, then 1+1=1. If the sign “+” designates Boolean exclusive OR, then 1+1=0. For a sapient being, who has no understanding of numbers or the concept of addition, the expression is meaningless gobbledygook.

Not even all humans with normal IQ can conceptualize numbers. There are still some tribes, for whom the numbers are “one”, “two” and “many”.

Now, of course you may disagree with the mathematical realist, but the realist doesn’t hold that an “abstract reality” is real in the same way a physical reality is, only that if it’s objectively true, it must be real in some way.

I have no idea what the expression “it must be real in some way” might mean.

I feel like you’re misconceiving essence as some type of substrate of reality, which is the position German Realists take. It’s not ethereal, or even spiritual. For the Thomist, it’s just a term used for the principle of what a thing is. That there are things that can be grouped as the same type of thing and other things that are a different type of thing. We can be more detailed, and there are plenty who reject essences, but “show me the essence of a dog” just begs the question, as no claim is made as to there being any essence of a dog in particular, or that any essence is knowable.

Well, that was nice. Too bad it is meaningless. But then I found the whole Thomistic philosophy a meaningless gobbledygook anyhow. Any subject that cannot be expressed in normal, everyday words, with their everyday meanings - is not worthy to contemplate. As soon as the apologist says: “well, if we use the everyday meaning of the expression “X”, then you are correct. But in our vocabulary expression “X” really means something totally different.”

 

[Gorgias]

The proposition 1+1=2 is grounded in the axioms one selects. In ordinary algebra, if the base of the numbering system is at least 3 and if the sign “+” designates regular addition, then it is true - following from the axioms.

The proposition “1+1=2” is true regardless which base or numbering system you use to express it. It is a proposition. It is true. We’re not asking “are these characters rendered properly?”, we’re asking “is one added to one equal to two?”. And… it is.

C"mon – you call yourself a ‘mathematician’, and that’s the rebuttal you come with?

 

[Sophia]

The proposition “1+1=2” is true regardless which base or numbering system you use to express it. It is a proposition. It is true. We’re not asking “are these characters rendered properly?”, we’re asking “is one added to one equal to two?”. And… it is.

The proposition is just a bunch of symbols. The veracity of a proposition is contingent upon what the symbols mean. Glad that I could clarify for you.

 

[Gorgias]

The proposition is just a bunch of symbols. The veracity of a proposition is contingent upon what the symbols mean .

I get the distinction you’re attempting to make, but at a metaphysical level, it’s all wrong. The proposition is the meaning – the symbols are merely a representation of the meaning, in some agreed-upon encoding.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

When a realist says 1+1=2 exists, they don’t mean it has any location in space or time…

And as such they are wrong. The proposition 1+1=2 is grounded in the axioms one selects. In ordinary algebra, if the base of the numbering system is at least 3 and if the sign “+” designates regular addition, then it is true - following from the axioms.

If the numbering system is base “2”, then the numeral “2” does not even exist and 1+1=10. If the numbering system is base “1”, then 1+1=11. If the sign “+” designates addition in Boolean algebra, then 1+1=1. If the sign “+” designates Boolean exclusive OR, then 1+1=0. For a sapient being, who has no understanding of numbers or the concept of addition, the expression is meaningless gobbledygook.

Not even all humans with normal IQ can conceptualize numbers. There are still some tribes, for whom the numbers are “one”, “two” and “many”.

Gorgias hit the nail on this quite well, but to expand, it was telling that when previously asked whether you were a mathematical realist or a mathematical nominalist, you said neither and just said you are a mathematician. The type of people who are neither are the type of people who have yet to engage in critical thinking on the matter. And that’s okay, nobody has the opportunity to think critically about everything, but you might want to consider that before stating your opinions so absolutely. Certainly the anti-realist’s dilemma (and one which anti-realists seek to/claim to have resolved) is how to explain how it can yield so much explanatory work if there’s no objective truth to it. Simply taking it for granted while denouncing the other side is to beg the question. And I’m not asking you to write an essay and explain yourself, here, just trying to give you some food for thought.

Wesrock:

I feel like you’re misconceiving essence as some type of substrate of reality…

Well, that was nice. Too bad it is meaningless. But then I found the whole Thomistic philosophy a meaningless gobbledygook anyhow. Any subject that cannot be expressed in normal, everyday words, with their everyday meanings - is not worthy to contemplate. As soon as the apologist says: “well, if we use the everyday meaning of the expression “X”, then you are correct. But in our vocabulary expression “X” really means something totally different.”

Well, the root of the word “essence” isn’t to imply some type of mystery or anything ethereal. It comes from the idea of “what is essential to being a human being?” “What is essential to being a triangle?” And so on. There’s nothing mysterious, cryptic, or arbitrary about it.

But I’m sorry this objection just begs the question, rules out pretty much all of philosophy in general, and would even seem to show a lot of disdain for many schools of physics whether that be QM or chemistry. I wouldn’t have expected to see you be so anti-intellectual. Talk about a reply that’s completely meaningless.

 

[Sophia]

I get the distinction you’re attempting to make, but at a metaphysical level, it’s all wrong. The proposition is the meaning – the symbols are merely a representation of the meaning, in some agreed-upon encoding.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

Well, you made one thing abundantly clear, namely that you have no idea what you are talking about.

First thing: “propositions do not have objective, ontological existence”.
Second: “propositions cannot be separated from their encoding”.
Third: “if there is no mutually accepted meaning, then the proposition is a meaningless jumble of symbols”.
Fourth: "there is no objective, intrinsic meaning of symbols and the words comprised of those symbols.

I could present a perfectly good proposition in a language that is unknown to you, and all you would see a meaningless mumbo-jumbo.

You need a whole lot of study of linguistics before you can claim that you “clarified” anything…

In linguistics, meaning is the information or concepts that a sender intends to convey, or does convey, in communication with a receiver.