Question for Thomists: How does the idea of final-causes prove the existence of an intelligent cause?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

IWantGod

Guest
How does the idea of final-causes prove the existence of an intelligent cause?

And if so do final-causes exist in the real world.
 
How does the idea of final-causes prove the existence of an intelligent cause?

And if so do final-causes exist in the real world.
Final cause is about the fact that we are going somewhere. I have no clue how one can find an evidence for it in the real world.
 
How does the idea of final-causes prove the existence of an intelligent cause?

And if so do final-causes exist in the real world.
did you go back and read the 5th way? What it basically argues is that if you see a arrow moving and hitting a target it logically follows that some type of intelligence caused it to move that way. An arrow doesn’t move on it’s own and doesn’t adjust itself in flight.

the same is the way in the universe, you can see that the universe is moving towards a certain end. It is unintelligent so it can’t move to that end by itself, but it is pushed that way by an intelligence.

One other thing to keep in mind, the 5th way builds on the ways before it I wouldn’t use the 5th way as a way in itself, espically in modern times where many atheists don’t believe the universe has an order, a final end etc. But is very easy to argue that motion (not our modern idea of motion.) shows God’s existence

I have to wrap this up got to leave. Hope this helped.
 
did you go back and read the 5th way? What it basically argues is that if you see a arrow moving and hitting a target it logically follows that some type of intelligence caused it to move that way. An arrow doesn’t move on it’s own and doesn’t adjust itself in flight.

the same is the way in the universe, you can see that the universe is moving towards a certain end. It is unintelligent so it can’t move to that end by itself, but it is pushed that way by an intelligence.

One other thing to keep in mind, the 5th way builds on the ways before it I wouldn’t use the 5th way as a way in itself, especially in modern times where many atheists don’t believe the universe has an order, a final end etc. But is very easy to argue that motion (not our modern idea of motion.) shows God’s existence

I have to wrap this up got to leave. Hope this helped.
Thanks. You gave me a brief summary. Its helpful, but I hope that someone can give a more detailed presentation for the sake of the thread. The 5th way is the hardest to understand. The first 2 are the easiest.
 
There is a force in the universe called entropy… Basically, stuff tends to fall apart.

Except when it doesn’t. Many things (living things) are driven to some definite good by their nature, and of course this depends on self-preservation, against the tendency to fall apart (like in death). How can a thing tend towards a good unless it is ordered that way by something prior to it?

If I recall correctly, there is something on this in the famous “Thomistic theses.”
 
40.png
catholictiger:
if you see an arrow moving and hitting a target it logically follows that some type of intelligence caused it to move that way. An arrow doesn’t move on it’s own and doesn’t adjust itself in flight.
This follows logically because we know that arrows, by their nature, do not generally fly through the air and hit a target without being made to do so by a person, i.e. an intelligent agent that shot the arrow on purpose.

Water, on the other hand, is often seen to move, flowing downhill in a river, splashing against the shore in waves etc. We do not generally perceive that the water’s movement is caused by an intelligent agent. Water, by its nature, moves when acted upon by gravity which is a non-intelligent force. The difference between these two may be in the perception of a goal or intended purpose. Why does the water run downhill to the sea? Why do the waves lap the shore? Is there intelligence behind it or is it just due the the nature of the physical matter involved?
40.png
catholictiger:
the same is the way in the universe, you can see that the universe is moving towards a certain end. It is unintelligent so it can’t move to that end by itself, but it is pushed that way by an intelligence.
So then, what is the ‘certain end’ towards which the universe is moving? It’s not clear to me what this end is. Without a clearly perceived end, it could be considered more likely that the ‘movement’ of the universe is more closely analogous to the water, with no intelligent agent necessarily involved, than to the arrow.
 
This follows logically because we know that arrows, by their nature, do not generally fly through the air and hit a target without being made to do so by a person, i.e. an intelligent agent that shot the arrow on purpose.

Water, on the other hand, is often seen to move, flowing downhill in a river, splashing against the shore in waves etc. We do not generally perceive that the water’s movement is caused by an intelligent agent. Water, by its nature, moves when acted upon by gravity which is a non-intelligent force. The difference between these two may be in the perception of a goal or intended purpose. Why does the water run downhill to the sea? Why do the waves lap the shore? Is there intelligence behind it or is it just due the the nature of the physical matter involved?
I would say that to say that something is caused by the nature of the physical matter is really similar to saying it is acting according to its end or final cause. Since to say something has a nature is to say it has an end or function that is governed by that nature, or is related to its nature. And Aquinas, by saying things have final causes is not saying that their is an intelligence behind it. But, only saying that it has a functional purpose. Like for instance the hearts functional purpose is to pump blood. Now, you could not say what the heart’s functional purpose is without knowing something about the nature of the heart and blood.
So then, what is the ‘certain end’ towards which the universe is moving? It’s not clear to me what this end is. Without a clearly perceived end, it could be considered more likely that the ‘movement’ of the universe is more closely analogous to the water, with no intelligent agent necessarily involved, than to the arrow.
Well, one observation could be man’s intellect. Do you think that intelligence could arrive from non-intelligence? Is that something you would ever expect? Can you get more in the output of a system than what you put into a system? It seems to me that the efficient cause of man’s intellect must be a greater intelligence. Since man, although intelligent, could not cause intelligence to arrive out of nothing. And even the stuff that he does monkey around with, like a.i., requires great intelligence on the part of the designer.
 
A mouse trap is designed. The final cause of a mousetrap is that it is intelligently designed to catch mice, without which intelligently designed cause the mousetrap could not exist. Can anyone imagine the existence of a mousetrap that was not intelligently designed?
 
It is observed that things don’t cause themselves, they have a beginning. And we also observe that causes produce effects eg. science proves for every action there is a reaction, such as in rocket propulsion. We also observe that there exists a series of causes and their effects. If we regress from effects to causes in a series, eg a cue ball hitting another billiard ball hitting another etc. on a pool table we come to the final cause of this kinetic energy. It is not the first ball in the series that caused the energy, but the shooter with the cue stick. Similarly the real mover in this series is outside the series, God is necessarily the first cause in all causes, and outside the series, and He was not caused Himself, for if He was then He would not be God, or the Uncaused Cause of all other causes and need a cause Himself which would lead to another cause. You can not have an infinite series of causes because then you wouldn’t have a first cause, an infinite series of causes have no beginning and no end. We established that things do not cause themselves but are caused.

When we view the sun orbiting around the earth, we know that the sun in it’s orbit was caused, we know that suns in the planet system do explode or end, they don’t sustain themselves. We also observe that the sun produces heat, and if the earth comes too close, it will be destroyed, so there is PURPOSE in the existence of the orbit, and the ORDER of the rotation and orbit of the earth around the sun. We also notice that the sun rays help to produce food, and crops, and vegetation and heat to sustain life, again we observe PURPOSE and ORDER in our material world. Material world can not produce the intelligence needed to cause what we observe because ORDER AND PURPOSE ON THIS SCALE ARE SIGNS OF A SUPERIOR SPIRITUAL INTELLIGENCE, GOD God’s existence can be known by observing the manifestation of His attributes and power in the universe.
 
IYou can not have an infinite series of causes because then you wouldn’t have a first cause, an infinite series of causes have no beginning and no end. We established that things do not cause themselves but are caused.

.
I think Aquinas would argue that you cannot have an infinite series without an unmoved mover.

But everything else you said is good.
 
I think Aquinas would argue that you cannot have an infinite series without an unmoved mover.

But everything else you said is good.
You can not have an infinite series of causes because to be infinite you would have no beginning, and no end, a series of causes would have a beginning This is true even if you had an Unmoved Mover Once a series begins, God can sustain it infinitely. A series in infinity would have to existed without a beginning and no end, only God exists without a beginning, and no end for the simple fact He is Existence, and a series of causes can not sustain itself eternally, if it did, then each cause wouldn’t need a cause in the series if it already existed in eternity. So it’s a logical contradiction Aquinas would not argue, but agree.
 
You can not have an infinite series of causes because to be infinite you would have no beginning, and no end, a series of causes would have a beginning
Its my understanding that Aquinas was not arguing against an infinite series, but rather he was arguing against an infinite series of causes without an unmoved mover, which is certainly impossible. The beauty of Aquinas’ argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not a series has no beginning or end. The point is that the series can only exist if God exists regardless of whether the series is finite or infinite.

The Kalarm cosmological argument argues specifically for a beginning.
This is true even if you had an Unmoved Mover Once a series begins, God can sustain it infinitely. A series in infinity would have to existed without a beginning and no end, only God exists without a beginning, and no end for the simple fact He is Existence, and a series of causes can not sustain itself eternally, if it did, then each cause wouldn’t need a cause in the series if it already existed in eternity. So it’s a logical contradiction Aquinas would not argue, but agree.
He may agree, but it would be a mistake to think that he is arguing against an infinite series. Aquinas has faith that the universe had a beginning.
 
Its my understanding that Aquinas was not arguing against an infinite series, but rather he was arguing against an infinite series of causes without an unmoved mover, which is certainly impossible. The beauty of Aquinas’ argument is that it is irrelevant whether or not a series has no beginning or end. The point is that the series can only exist if God exists regardless of whether the series is finite or infinite.

The Kalarm cosmological argument argues specifically for a beginning.

He may agree, but it would be a mistake to think that he is arguing against an infinite series. Aquinas has faith that the universe had a beginning.
The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles of faith for faith presupposes natural knowledge Part of proof for God’s existence is the proof that there can not be infinite regress in movers, if there is no first un-moved mover , there can be no second moved movers, but there are second movers, therefore there is a First Mover (Summa contra Gentiles I, l3) Infinite progress in effects is possible, but infinite regress in causes is not. It can be demonstrated by a posteriori argument, from known effects to their cause.that God exists.
 
The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles of faith for faith presupposes natural knowledge
I am aware of this. But i am also aware that Aquinas, by the light of his faith, believed the universe had a beginning. This is an article of faith. As far as philosophy is concerned it was the goal of Aquinas to present arguments that showed that the universe is dependent on God for its “existence”. This is not the same thing as arguing that a series cannot go infinitely into the past; that is the karlam cosmological argument.
Part of proof for God’s existence is the proof that there can not be infinite regress in movers, if there is no first un-moved mover , there can be no second moved movers, but there are second movers, therefore there is a First Mover (Summa contra Gentiles I, l3) Infinite progress in effects is possible, but infinite regress in causes is not. It can be demonstrated by a posteriori argument, from known effects to their cause.that God exists.
Yes, but the goal is not to prove a beginning in “time”, but rather it is to prove the existence of an “unmoved mover”, which exists outside of time by definition. It is irrelevant whether the universe is eternal (has no beginning in time) or not.
 
I am aware of this. But i am also aware that Aquinas, by the light of his faith, believed the universe had a beginning. This is an article of faith. As far as philosophy is concerned it was the goal of Aquinas to present arguments that showed that the universe is dependent on God for its “existence”. This is not the same thing as arguing that a series cannot go infinitely into the past; that is the karlam cosmological argument.

Yes, but the goal is not to prove a beginning in “time”, but rather it is to prove the existence of an “unmoved mover”, which exists outside of time by definition. It is irrelevant whether the universe is eternal (has no beginning in time) or not.
I made my statements for the existence of the Unmoved Mover, God as clear as I could, and I do not find any problems, but you seem to, so go with it! Everything I stated has to do with the existence of God as the Unmoved Mover. St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized reason with faith, to show faith is reasonable.
 
This deserves a longer treatment, but if God was not intellect, that would be an unfulfilled potential, and by definition, God has no potential, only actuality. And in order to act, God would need some type of final cause (albeit, he is his own cause), but he couldn’t just have a finite amount of direction/will/intellect, it would be the “full” amount (infinite). He would also have to be simple (uncomposed), so his will would have to be convertbile with his intellect which is convertible with his being. Anyway, the point doesn’t work backwards from God to the definition, but from the beginning to the criteria that the neccesary being must have (largely by ruling out properties that would otherwise make him contingent) and only then saying, “this is what we call God.”

I’ve made a terrible case. Maybe I can speak of the fifth way later.
 
This deserves a longer treatment, but if God was not intellect, that would be an unfulfilled potential,
Why would the lack of intellect be an unfulfilled potential?
I’ve made a terrible case. Maybe I can speak of the fifth way later.
I liked it. looking forward to it.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top