Aquinas' Third Proof for God

[Anthony_V]

I’m saying that if we find purpose, order, complexity, etc we would ordinarily deduce/recognize reason at play. I don’t think any of that can be separated from a conscious being, a mind at work. I’m not at all sure what it means to say that “the world is beneficial to life on earth”. Sometimes the world can be hostile to life for one thing but either way we cannot help but ask, “Why is the world beneficial to life?” Or, “Where/how did the simplest system originate, let alone life which is unfathomably complex even in its simplest form?”

So you’re simply saying that if there were no intelligence, there would be no way for potencies to be directed towards specific actualities?

In other words, that the potential in the ice cube to melt on my counter is directed towards actually melting on my counter when place there – rather than the potential in the ice cube for melting actually resulting in, say, a life-sized portrait of Richard Simmons?

 

[thinkandmull]

If the universe was a life producing machine, consciousness would not be required for its work

 

[fhansen]

If the universe was a life producing machine, consciousness would not be required for its work

If the universe was a life-producing machine, we might call it God-or expect such a complex machine to have a designer otherwise.

 

[fhansen]

So you’re simply saying that if there were no intelligence, there would be no way for potencies to be directed towards specific actualities?

In other words, that the potential in the ice cube to melt on my counter is directed towards actually melting on my counter when place there – rather than the potential in the ice cube for melting actually resulting in, say, a life-sized portrait of Richard Simmons?

Well, even with the portrait we might need a God to explain it-just a less intelligent one perhaps?

 

[thinkandmull]

Saying an infinite series needs God without proving that God is conscious seems meaningless to me. Does Aquinas ever prove from looking at the world that something conscious is behind it?

 

[ccmnxc]

1. The expression E(A) means “A exists”.
2. The expression ~E(A) means: “it is not true that A exists”, in other words: “A does not exist”, which is the logical equivalent of
3. E(~A) “not A exists”.

There is no equivocation here. Simple, elementary logic.

Of course this whole dancing around is supposed to lead to “creation ex nihilo”. And since “nothing” does not and cannot exist, there is no need to assume any creation.

Well, I’ve been unplugged for about a month, but I wanted to get this sorted out quickly, even if Solmyr isn’t around anymore:

If E(~A) means “not A exists,” it assumes the existence of something other than A. So let’s set up something new. ~E(ABC…[conjunction of all objects]). The logical flow is the same except there is a set of conjuncts where only A was before. ~E(A…) would then be false on account of it being factually incorrect. However, there is nothing logically incoherent about the proposition, or to put it more technically, it would be contingently false. Yet, if we do as you say and ascribe it as being equivalent to E(~A…), now all of a sudden you are saying there exists something that is not in the set of all objects. That, my friend, would be contradictory, which is to say, a necessary falsehood.
However, if two statements are logically equivalent, you cannot have one that is a contingent falsehood and another that is a necessary falsehood, since they should be saying the same thing. And yet here, when dealing with the claim you’ve set up, that is exactly what happens. Thus, while in most cases ~E(A) might be equivalent to E(~A), it breaks down eventually, which is to say, there is an exception to the rule. That is why, I’m guessing, most logic books I’ve come across say that ~(Ex)Ax is equivalent to (x)~Ax and not (Ex)~Ax, because the former is uncontentious while the latter is pretty easy to dispute.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Does Aquinas ever prove from looking at the world that something conscious is behind it?

The fifth proof:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” Thomas Aquinas

Paul Davies, Physicist:

“… there is no reason whatever to suppose that, left to itself, such a [primordial] soup would spontaneously generate life, even after millions of years, merely by exploring every combination of chemical arrangements. Simple statistics soon reveal that the probability of the spontaneous assembly of DNA - the complex molecule that carries the genetic code - as a result of random concatenations of the soup molecules is ludicrously - almost unthinkably - small. There are so many combinations of molecules possible that the chance of the right one cropping up by blind chance is virtually zero.”

 

[cfauster]

Paul Davies, Physicist:

“… there is no reason whatever to suppose that, left to itself, such a [primordial] soup would spontaneously generate life, even after millions of years, merely by exploring every combination of chemical arrangements. Simple statistics soon reveal that the probability of the spontaneous assembly of DNA - the complex molecule that carries the genetic code - as a result of random concatenations of the soup molecules is ludicrously - almost unthinkably - small. There are so many combinations of molecules possible that the chance of the right one cropping up by blind chance is virtually zero.”

I recommend reading not only the paragraph with the above quote on p. 69 of Davies’ book, but also the surrounding paragraphs on pp. 58-71 to get an accurate understanding of Paul Davies’ point.