I
IWantGod
Guest
The processes involved is why there is activity, but that does not explain why physical things act for a purpose.
- Status
S
STT
Guest
D
Delusioned
Guest
Correct. But it’s within this contnuous process of change that some things persist over time. And it’s in this persistence that IWantGod wishes to see the hand of an intelligent cause. While in fact it’s simply chemistry.
D
Delusioned
Guest
It doesn’t just explain why there’s activity, it explains why there’s the specific activity that we observe. And why things tend toward self-preservation.
If you wish to argue for a metaphysical why, then be my guest, but neither science, nor reason, needs it.
I
IWantGod
Guest
No scientist would argue that the scientific method can identify why natures have the qualities and behaviors they do. They just have the behavior they do and science identifies it. Get it right. What you are arguing is your own philosophical opinion that ultimately leads to an unintelligible conclusion. You cannot answer the question of why some physical nature acts for a goal directed end such as the preservation of life with science alone. It doesn’t explain why we act for the preservation of our own life, it only identifies that we do . The answer you have given points merely to the processes that are required for me to move my arm to the keyboard and write this post, but it doesn’t explain why i am acting for that goal. Only an intelligence can answer that question, and blind physical processes by themselves that do not act for a purpose or goal but just so happen to behave in a particular way, is not a sufficient explanation.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
I agree with you. I said as much earlier. Your position is that it’s unreasonable to think there is no plan, therefore you argue that there is. How else could you approach this?
It’s unreasonable because you believe in a God that defines purpose. I don’t. Never the twain…
And it would be as silly for me to demand that you prove that there is a plan as it is for you to demand that I prove the negative.
W
Wozza
Guest
Let’s say that an area is subject to forrest fires. Some plants can’t handle the conditions and die in the flames. Some manage better and survive. Because they survive tbey produce plants that are also fire resistant.
What we end up with is a forrest containing plants that give all the appearance of being designed to survive the conditions. Is there any intelligence involved? Is it the purpose of the plants to survive?
It apparently looks like that to some people.
I
IWantGod
Guest
What i “believe in” is irrelevant. If i can identify purpose driven activity in physical systems, then metaphysical naturalism is wrong, and therefore it’s opposite must be right.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
The floor is yours.Wozza:
What i “believe in” is irrelevant. If i can identify purpose driven activity in physical systems, then metaphysical naturalism is wrong, and therefore it’s opposite must be right.
I
IWantGod
Guest
You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing for intelligent design. I am arguing that physical reality behaves as it does according to an intelligently designed plan, and whenever we identify goal directed behavior like when a human is protecting his village for the preservation of life, this is evidence.of that plan.
The reason i see it as evidence, is because the physical processes of which we are comprised are at a fundamental level blind and do not knowingly act for a purpose. Thus the fact that they are acting for a discernible purpose such as the preservation of life only makes rational sense to me if there is an intelligent being that created physical reality and intended it to behave in this manner. Otherwise it does not makes sense why a group of atoms would seek to preserve it’s being or why any physical system would seek to preserve itself from danger or destruction…
Last edited:
D
Delusioned
Guest
As you are so frequently wont to say, that’s not an argument, that’s an assertion.
S
STT
Guest
That is our genes which allow us to enjoy sex and love children without these we were not here. Gene is chemical.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Irrelevant to Aquinas’ arguments. He did not suppose a beginning in the premises, nor does he argue for a temporal beginning of the universe.Aquinas11:
OR…there is no begining or end and existence is an eternal loop. Yeah, I know you can’t imagine that either.
There are better objection tacts to take, maybe, but this objection here is really just irrelevant to his argument.
Edit: @Wozza though the original phrasing in the post you were responding to was either poorly worded or misunderstands it, too. What you wrote would be an objection to that, but that’s not any of Aquinas’ Five Ways.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
That’s weird. I explained why you are wrong and you completely ignored it.Wozza:
You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing for intelligent design. I am arguing that physical reality behaves as it does according to an intelligently designed plan, and whenever we identify goal directed behavior like when a human is protecting his village for the preservation of life, this is evidence.of that plan.
The reason i see it as evidence, is because the physical processes of which we are comprised are at a fundamental level blind and do not knowingly act for a purpose. Thus the fact that they are acting for a discernible purpose such as the preservation of life only makes rational sense to me if there is an intelligent being that created physical reality and intended it to behave in this manner. Otherwise it does not makes sense why a group of atoms would seek to preserve it’s being or why any physical system would seek to preserve itself from danger or destruction…
It is only organisms that survive that are here for you to point to and say: ‘Look. They must have a purpose in surviving’. It’s like saying that grass has a purpose for being green.
S
STT
Guest
Yes, he didn’t get it. You however cannot prove that there is no intelligence behind all these.
I
IWantGod
Guest
If an organism is clearly acting for it’s survival then it is acting for the purpose of surviving. The fact that some other physical object didn’t do so well in comparison is irrelevant.
You act for your survival everyday i assume, like going to work, eating, and other blatantly self-evident reasons for acknowledging the existence of purpose driven activity.
It’s like you were born yesterday. Are the things that i’m saying really that controversial that you feel the need to ignore it?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
@IWantGod is, I think, taking a different tact than I would, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I’ll let hin speak to it. The only thing I’ll comment on is that I think he’s speaking of purpose in nature at a more fundamental level.IWantGod:
That’s weird. I explained why you are wrong and you completely ignored it.Wozza:
You are misunderstanding my argument. I am not arguing for intelligent design. I am arguing that physical reality behaves as it does according to an intelligently designed plan, and whenever we identify goal directed behavior like when a human is protecting his village for the preservation of life, this is evidence.of that plan.
The reason i see it as evidence, is because the physical processes of which we are comprised are at a fundamental level blind and do not knowingly act for a purpose. Thus the fact that they are acting for a discernible purpose such as the preservation of life only makes rational sense to me if there is an intelligent being that created physical reality and intended it to behave in this manner. Otherwise it does not makes sense why a group of atoms would seek to preserve it’s being or why any physical system would seek to preserve itself from danger or destruction…
It is only organisms that survive that are here for you to point to and say: ‘Look. They must have a purpose in surviving’. It’s like saying that grass has a purpose for being green.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
That’s the “infinite causal chain” previously discussed & available evidence doesn’t support it.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Already addressed. The first cause can’t be physical or finite entity since that would require a prior cause that causes the physical/finite entity to have characteristics X, instead of characteristics Y
D
Delusioned
Guest
It’s the use of the word “can’t” that’s problematic here. As the saying goes, never say never.
- Status