The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
While I think the Fifth Way could be consistent with “separated” laws of physics, the typical Thomist understanding of such laws are that they are descriptive of the natures of things, and the things without intelligence act according to those natures since God gives then that ability, along with him being their ultimate essential efficient cause. The laws, in a sense, are in the nature of things and not something separate that acts on them.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
The laws, in a sense, are in the nature of things and not something separate that acts on them.
Click to expand...
You mean to say that the law is simply what objects are doing and doesn’t exist separately from those objects. I think i agree with that.
 
Wesrock said:
Certainly not when taken in tandem with the other Four Ways.
Click to expand...
Now you are invoking something else. When we speak about the other 4 ways it is said to be off topic and hijacking the thread. I am talking about only the 5th way argument. The 5th way argument does not prove a Creator, nor does it show that there cannot be several beings guiding different things.
Wesrock said:
The Fifth Way doesn’t ignore that possibility, it shows that it’s insufficient.
Click to expand...
Insufficient for who? That is what is meant by an unjustified leap from the material to the nonmaterial God in heaven. You are looking for a sufficient reason, and at this time you do not find it in nature and do not understand how it can be found in natural material causes , so you suppose that the reason must exist in heaven outside of nature and outside of the natural material world. What you hypothesize as the supposed sufficient reason existing in heaven may not be the actual reason because it is not impossible that the actual reason may be found in the nature of reality itself in the material world.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
Wesrock:
Certainly not when taken in tandem with the other Four Ways.
Click to expand...
Now you are invoking something else. When we speak about the other 4 ways it is said to be off topic and hijacking the thread. I am talking about only the 5th way argument. The 5th way argument does not prove a Creator, nor does it show that there cannot be several beings guiding different things.
Click to expand...
Not explicitly. I am looking into that further.

The topic is about the Fifth Way and what it shows, but we shouldn’t treat it as intending to be an isolated argument when it is meant to be used as additional support.
Wesrock said:
The Fifth Way doesn’t ignore that possibility, it shows that it’s insufficient.
Click to expand...
Insufficient for who? That is what is meant by an unjustified leap from the material to the nonmaterial God in heaven. You are looking for a sufficient reason, and at this time you do not find it in nature and do not understand how it can be found in natural material causes , so you suppose that the reason must exist in heaven outside of nature and outside of the natural material world. What you hypothesize as the supposed sufficient reason existing in heaven may not be the actual reason because it is not impossible that the actual reason may be found in the nature of reality itself in the material world.
Click to expand...
You beg the question against the argument provided at length previously. The argument isn’t that we haven’t found it, the argument is that there necessarily can be no explanation for things-lacking-intelligence having ends apart from an intelligence. Address it (meaning the specifics of my many previous posts earlier in this topic where I focused on the propositions and the argument itself) to make your point instead of just saying it’s not true.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
the argument is that there necessarily can be no explanation for things-lacking-intelligence having ends apart from an intelligence.
Click to expand...
The “intelligence” that “non-intelligent” things have may be in some material latent cause in this universe and not in heaven.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Wesrock:
the argument is that there necessarily can be no explanation for things-lacking-intelligence having ends apart from an intelligence.
Click to expand...
The “intelligence” that “non-intelligent” things have may be in some material latent cause in this universe and not in heaven.
Click to expand...
The argument is built on St. Thomas’ philosophy of the mind (it’s how the argument makes its point) and arguments that show that no material cause can account for the intentionality of the intellect (maybe I’ll have time to comment on that at another time), but even aside from that, again, the Fifth Way in itself shows that there must be an intelligence that accounts for things lacking intelligence that pursue their ends (and could a finite intelligence account for every determined end of things?), and if, say, someone ever asked “well why does the Prime Mover have to be intelligent,” the Fifth Way is one argument why.

Anyway, I’m going on vacation to the Grand Canyon tomorrow through the end of the week. I may be able to hop in from time to time but I may avoid more “involved” topics such as this one while out.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
no material cause can account for the intentionality of the intellect
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t a biology scientist dispute that and give his belief that consciousness and intention in animals is an entirely material phenomenon?
 
AlNg said:
Further, going on a tangent of sorts, according to biological evolution consciousness is seen to emerge from matter within this universe.
Click to expand...
Apparently no apology is forthcoming from @IWantToModerate on hijacking this thread.

It is incorrect to say that the science has observed (seen) consciousness emerge from matter for such a claim elevates a metaphysical speculation to have the same probability as science fact.

Such a claim, lacking direct evidence, takes the evolutionary scientist out of the realm and rules of science and puts him into the realm and rules of metaphysics. The metaphysical first principles (rules) of sufficient and proportionate reason as necessary to explain an effect are manifestly ignored by one who supports their claim by merely stating the effect under examination simply “emerged”.
 
jan10000 said:
So you wrote a lot of critique on the article I referenced, I don;t see a point in defending it further.
But i will point out the following:
  1. There are many accepted refutations to the Argument from Design. The two I find most convincing are:
a) The universe itself could just simply be the source of order. You do not need an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent ‘creator’. You could quite simply say that the laws of nature are, effectively, “God”.
Click to expand...
If the argument follows, things that lack intelligence can only obtain any determined result if directed to do so by an intelligence. Simply stating “but you there’s no reason it couldn’t be something unintelligent even if it’s true” just begs the question against it. The argument shows that an intelligence is required. This objection is exactly what it’s addressing. That you think the argument is wrong is one thing, but the whole Fifth Way is aimed at refuting this exact point. To write “but even if the Fifth Way is true it could still be…” is just asinine, begs the questions, and doesn’t understand the argument. No, if the Fifth Way is right that is precisely and explicitly what it rules out.
b) From a theological perspective, the universe does not appear WELL-ordered. Ordered? yes. Well-ordered? no. Why would a God as defined by theism create such a universe? He wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Who are you to say he wouldn’t? The argument shows that for any end to be obtained at all an intelligence is required.
The above two points have no refutation. The first addresses exactly what the argument claims - specifically, that even if you accept the argument, the conclusion in no way portrays what anyone today would call “God”. The second simply tells it like it is - the universe looks exactly as if if was NOT created by a designer. If there was or is such a being, it certainly does not have the attributes we apply to Theism. Not even close.
Click to expand...
The above two points are moronic. I bit my tongue in regards to the original author’s article but I don’t know if it’s just because I’m exhausted or flabbergasted. The author is lazy and takes no time to understand St. Thomas’ point. The above objections only make a lick of sense if we assume he’s confusing it with Paley-esque irreducible complexity arguments, which is not at all what St. Thomas was doing. The author is either academically lazy. I’ll just snip the “or” I intended to follow that because it’s nothing nice.
 
jan10000 said:
a) The universe itself could just simply be the source of order. You do not need an intelligent, omniscient, omnipotent ‘creator’. You could quite simply say that the laws of nature are, effectively, “God”.
Click to expand...
You could have given a better argument than this. You are just adding the word God to the laws of physics. But what does that mean? Aquinas is essentially arguing that it is unintelligible that we should find an unintelligent being ordered to any particular end that isn’t ordered to that end by an intelligent cause, because a being that is blind to any possible end cannot order itself to that end. Aquinas is essentially asking why should we find that things have final causes, which is an ontological question. But what you are saying is that we can solve the problem by asserting that the laws of physics is just a brute fact which you veiled with the word God, which in itself is a non-answer.

I admit that i myself am having difficulty with the fifth way, but i think that you are completely missing the point.

Wesrock left me this if you are really interested.

jan10000 said:
b) From a theological perspective, the universe does not appear WELL-ordered. Ordered? yes. Well-ordered? no. Why would a God as defined by theism create such a universe? He wouldn’t.
Click to expand...
The idea that God would not create this kind of universe is to claim information that you don’t really have. And secondly it’s irrelevant since if the laws of physics cannot explain itself then an intelligent cause is necessary.
 
Last edited:
It’s like attending a five hour lecture on the evolution of man from hominids and earlier primates and then the professor asking the audience if they have any questions and someone raises their hand and asks “but you haven’t explained why if man evolved from monkeys there are still monkeys” and it not being a joke.
 
Last edited:
So let’s assume Jan has a point. There are immaterial entities which we refer to as laws of nature which are unintelligent, causally active (as efficient causes) on things making them behave certain ways.

But if St. Thomas’ Fifth Way is true, and it is readily apparent that the final causes of these entities is to make things behave certain ways, and they lack intelligence, then the laws of nature must themselves be directed to those ends by something intelligent.
 
jan10000 said:
No it doesn’t. If you are going to just assert something, there is not point in continuing. The argument does NOT show that design requires intelligence. That is a PREMISE. That is the point of the objection.
Click to expand...
No. You are confusing the Fifth Way with Paley. Why won’t that sink into your head? Intelligence is the conclusion, not a premise.

My battery is about dead. I’m off for real.
 
Wesrock said:
But if St. Thomas’ Fifth Way is true, and it is readily apparent that the final causes of these entities is to make things behave certain ways, and they lack intelligence, then the laws of nature must themselves be directed to those ends by something intelligent.
Click to expand...
Otherwise you just end up with an infinite regress of unintelligent beings and the same problem.
 
jan10000 said:
Why can’t the universe simply be following some set of physical laws? It certainly does not appear to have a purpose.
Click to expand...
You seem to have a superhuman ability to see things in an argument that are not really there. In other-words we are not addressing the same argument.
jan10000 said:
But I am not coming up with these objections myself.
Click to expand...
You have to know what you are objecting to before you can claim that titans have refuted it.
jan10000 said:
I addressed this in another thread regarding the problem of evil.
Click to expand...
Well. Lets keep that in the other thread and actually deal with the argument at hand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top