The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wesrock said:
What he’s saying is it’s not by chance that something like an electron always (absent other interfering causes) moving towards a positive charge and away from a negative charge.
Click to expand...
That may not have been true at the time of the BB.
 
Wesrock said:
And my point isn’t so much about what the scientist believes but that, from a metaphysical perspective, the scientific method is incoherent without a notion of final causality. That doesn’t mean scientists have to think about that when conducting experiments.
Click to expand...
And my point is that a macro-evolutionary proponent is no longer a scientist but a metaphysician. As a scientist, he need not recognize first principles, but, as a metaphysician, he must.

Recall, I did not direct my initial post in this thread to you but to posters who are proponents of macro-evolution. You, however, challenged my claim with a “hit and gotta run” post. It appears we started talking past each other from the very beginning of this exchange.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Wesrock:
What he’s saying is it’s not by chance that something like an electron always (absent other interfering causes) moving towards a positive charge and away from a negative charge.
Click to expand...
That may not have been true at the time of the BB.
Click to expand...
From the moment electrons formed their tendencies under the same conditions would be true. If it moved in a different fashion it would be because there were other interfering causes stronger than the forces between positive and negative charges.
 
AlNg said:
That may not have been true at the time of the BB.
Click to expand...
I think this misses the point. There were regularities at the time of the big-bang. It’s the general fact that regularities exist which causes us to question. That an electron may have behaved differently under a certain condition doesn’t change the fact that electrons have final causes.
 
IWantGod said:
There were regularities at the time of the big-bang.
Click to expand...
But are they regularities now? And with the theories of the cyclical universe, and perhaps even other scenarios, will today’s regularities be the regularities of tomorrow?
 
AlNg said:
But are they regularities now? And with the theories of the cyclical universe, and perhaps even other scenarios, will today’s regularities be the regularities of tomorrow?
Click to expand...
The question does it matter. If the point of the fifth way is to explain any regularity in nature, then what does it matter if there is some hypothetical future event where new regularities or new laws of physics begin to actualise.

Can it be said that any law of physics has a natural explanation ultimately speaking.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Because that means that what you are observing is not all that regular.
Click to expand...
There is regularity regardless. If there is another universe where the regularities are different to our universe that wouldn’t make any difference to what the fifth way is trying to explain. Particulars are somewhat irrelevant. Rather it is the general fact of regularity which we identify in particulars that cause us to question.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
IWantGod:
what does it matter if there is some hypothetical future event were new regularities or new laws of physics begin to actualise.
Click to expand...
Because that means that what you are observing is not all that regular.
Click to expand...
It’s not that the nature of being an electron is changed, but the conditions and circumstances it is under. It’s about tending to the same ends under the same/similar circumstances.

We can get into the hypothetical examples of green, blue, and “grue” if we need to hash this out further.
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
AlNg:
Because that means that what you are observing is not all that regular.
Click to expand...
There is regularity regardless. If there is another universe where the regularities are different to our universe that wouldn’t make any difference to what the fifth way is trying to explain. Particulars are somewhat irrelevant. Rather it is the general fact of regularity which we identify in particulars that cause us to question.
Click to expand...
If it had different ends in other possible worlds (not just behaving differently due to different circumstances) it would be a different nature and not really the same type of thing at all, but yes, in either case it’s the fact that there is causal regularity at all that is being highlighted.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
@Wesrock, i found this video, it’s very short. I just wanted to run it by you to see if it’s a correct representation of the fifth way.


He basically argues that there is nothing that can naturally justify regularity in nature, and that is why we must infer an intelligent cause.
Click to expand...
As a very high level overview it is correct. There’s a lot that remains to be unpacked in it, but that goes for any argument that involves thinking in ways most people aren’t used to being summed up in five minutes.
 
IWantGod said:
it is the general fact of regularity which we identify in particulars that cause us to question.
Click to expand...
You are not questioning. You are claiming that there is One Grand Designer who is guiding this regularity. That is an unwarranted leap as has been already pointed out.
 
IWantGod said:
Why is it an unwarranted leap to infer an intelligent cause?..
Click to expand...
There could be more than one designer guiding different regularities. And the guidance or reasons for the regularities may be found within the nature of matter itself, and not something outside of the universe. Further, going on a tangent of sorts, according to biological evolution consciousness is seen to emerge from matter within this universe. Animals do not have immortal souls, and yet they have consciousness and a certain amount of intelligence, at least for cats and dogs. IOW, animals are purely material beings, and yet they are conscious and have intellectual powers although to a limited extent.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
IWantGod:
Why is it an unwarranted leap to infer an intelligent cause?..
Click to expand...
There could be more than one designer guiding different regularities.
Click to expand...
Certainly not when taken in tandem with the other Four Ways.
And the guidance or reasons for the regularities may be found within the nature of matter itself, and not something outside of the universe.
Click to expand...
This just begs the question against the argument. The Fifth Way doesn’t ignore that possibility, it shows that it’s insufficient.
Further, going on a tangent of sorts, according to biological evolution consciousness is seen to emerge from matter within this universe. Animals do not have immortal souls, and yet they have consciousness and a certain amount of intelligence, at least for cats and dogs. IOW, animals are purely material beings, and yet they are conscious and have intellectual powers although to a limited extent.
Click to expand...
This could be a whole different discussion but that would just play into his explanation.
 
AlNg said:
There could be more than one designer guiding different regularities.
Click to expand...
I would not personally know how to refute this claim without invoking the first 3 ways or using an extended argument. But as for explaining the laws of physics, physical objects themselves are subject to the laws of physics and do not cause them to exist. So they don’t exist by chance or natural causes. We also see that things which did not exist are subject to there own particular regularities when they do exist and that it was always true that they would be even when they didn’t exist. Also non-intelligent objects are blind to their own ends, so it cannot be said that they are guiding themselves to their own ends. So it’s hard to see why someone would conclude that the laws of physics or the regularities we see in nature has a natural explanation. An intelligent cause would seem to be the more intelligible explanation.

True it is in the principle of physical things to have regularities, but that in it’self is just an observation and not an explanation of why they’re there. And there is something to say about the fact that an end is not actually present in an object and yet an object is ordered toward an end that doesn’t actually exist. What does it really mean to say that the cause of regularity is present in matter itself?

While i do have some difficulty with the fifth way i have yet to see a real rebuttal that doesn’t misunderstand it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top