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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
I think Aquinas would argue that you cannot have an infinite series without an unmoved mover.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.
.
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.I think Aquinas would argue that you cannot have an infinite series without an unmoved mover.
But everything else you said is good.
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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.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 agree.Thomas Aquinas synthesized reason with faith, to show faith is reasonable.
Why would the lack of intellect be an unfulfilled potential?This deserves a longer treatment, but if God was not intellect, that would be an unfulfilled potential,
I liked it. looking forward to it.I’ve made a terrible case. Maybe I can speak of the fifth way later.