St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter RochesterMN
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good grief. That is unnerving. That wasn’t exactly what I was going to post. But gee, it’s close enough. I was even going to mention the worms.
 
Wozza said:
Some goal directed behaviour is without doubt the result of the blind processes
Click to expand...
If a person identifies goal directed behavior in an organism that has no knowledge of it’s activity, the only reasonable or possible explanation for this activity is that it is the result of intelligent information which can only be the product of an intelligent being because an intelligent being knows about purposeful ends and a non-rational being does not. Thus an intelligent cause is required as an explanation for why physical beings act for goal directed and purposeful ends that it does not know about. You cannot reduce intelligent information or goal directed activity to blind directionless processes as a sufficient cause even if they emerge within the activity of those processes as an effect, for the simple fact that intelligent activity in principle is directed towards a goal and blind physical processes are not…

If you want to argue that goal direction does not exist, then fine; but you can’t have it both ways and pretend that the end result is intelligible.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
Some goal directed behaviour is without doubt the result of the blind processes
Click to expand...
If a person identifies goal directed behavior in an organism that has no knowledge of it’s activity, the only reasonable or possible explanation for this activity is that it is the result of intelligent information…
Click to expand...
No. As previously explained, goal directed behaviour can be the result of blind evolutionary processes. You don’t need intelligence for all the plants who have a tendancy to be fire resistant to survive a fire. You just need a genetic toss of the dice to enable that ability to emerge by chance. And then those plants who do survive produce more plants with that ability. No intelligence is required.

You are saying that there was an intelligence that for some reason decided that some plants survived and some didn’t. And that some animals were carvivores and some were dinner. And some creatures could survive an ice age and some couldn’t.

This is not an example of intelligence. This is an example of either capriciousness or madness. Or natural processes taking their course.

There’s an old joke that goes: ‘If God didn’t want us to eat animals then why did He make them out of meat’. The implication being that there was no decision made.
 
IWantGod said:
If you want to argue that goal direction does not exist, then fine; but you can’t have it both ways and pretend that the end result is intelligible.
Click to expand...
There is of course an even more fundamental argument that IWantGod is making here. And that has to do with whether or not order can naturally arise out of disorder.

It’s this argument that leads us inevitably to the nature of the first cause.

But it’s Thanksgiving and I have to go, so although it’s been interesting, I"ll have to wait until later to catch up.

Maybe
 
Last edited:
Wozza said:
don’t need intelligence for all the plants who have a tendancy to be fire resistant to survive a fire.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about being fire resistant as a result of a unique chemical composition, although Aquinas’s fifth way goes much further than i do.

Straw-men aside, when i speak about goal directed activity, I’m clearly talking about a creature protecting it’s young from predators or other self preservation activities. Or even the goal directed act of going to the fridge to get a beer. There is clearly a distinction between this kind of activity and a thing having fire retardant qualities.

When you care to address my actual argument, i think you will find (assuming that you are a reasonable person) that metaphysical naturalism doesn’t have a leg to stand on. You will have no choice but to argue that the emergence and existence of intelligent information or goal directed behavior in nature is just a brute fact; and i reject brute facts.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
Wozza:
don’t need intelligence for all the plants who have a tendancy to be fire resistant to survive a fire.
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about being fire resistant as a result of a unique chemical composition, although Aquinas’s fifth way goes much further than i do.

Straw-men aside, when i speak about goal directed activity, I’m clearly talking about a creature protecting it’s young from predators or other self preservation activities. Or even the goal directed act of going to the fridge to get a beer.

When you care to address my actual argument, think you will find (assuming that you are a reasonable person) that metaphysical naturalism doesn’t have a leg to stand on. You will have no choice but to argue that the emergence and existence of intelligent information or goal directed behavior in nature is just a brute fact; and i reject brute facts.
Click to expand...
OK! We’re getting to the nitty gritty. It’s intelligence up to the point of protecting one’s young. But then you compare it to me going to the fridge for a beer.

Not comparible. One is instinctive and one is a desire to attain a goal. If you don’t understand the difference I will explain further. Otherwise I will need you to appreciate the difference before proceeding.
 
Wozza said:
It’s intelligence up to the point of protecting one’s young. But then you compare it to me going to the fridge for a beer.
Click to expand...
I didn’t make a comparison. Please address my argument.

If a person identifies goal directed behavior in an organism that has no knowledge of it’s activity, the only reasonable or possible explanation for this activity is that it is the result of intelligent information which can only be the product of an intelligent being because an intelligent being knows about purposeful ends and a non-rational being does not. Thus an intelligent cause is required as an explanation for why physical beings act for goal directed and purposeful ends that it does not know about. You cannot reduce intelligent information or goal directed activity to blind directionless processes as a sufficient cause even if they emerge within the activity of those processes as an effect, for the simple fact that intelligent activity in principle is directed towards a goal and blind physical processes are not…

If you want to argue that goal direction does not exist, then fine; but you can’t have it both ways and pretend that the end result is intelligible.
 
Last edited:
Well…i have stated my position, and you have stated yours. Thanks for your goal directed participation.
 
Wozza said:
I don’t think that answered my point. How can a decision be uncaused?
Click to expand...
That is very definition of free decision. A free decision is not affected by options, in another world is not caused by option. Therefore a free decision is uncaused.
 
IWantGod said:
But these different levels, if metaphysical naturalism is true, are not separated by a void. In the end, doing anything is nothing more than the sum total of all the blind physical processes occurring in your body. If it is clear that goal direction exists in your behavior, then it is not reasonable or rational to reduce this activity to blind physical directionless processes alone, because that is the complete opposite of goal directed activity. If a thing is acting for a purposeful end, then it makes intelligible sense to attribute this to intelligent information which can only be the product of an intelligent being; not blind physical processes.
Click to expand...
Emergence. They can answer that emergence is the reason for goal directed behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top