The Teleological Arguement: Has the truth of evolution destroyed it?

[Hubriss]

I forgot how vague people could be on these forums.

The only way you can challenge this argument is by trying to demonstrate to us that nature does in fact produce such patterns with out any need for intelligence. This is where the Darwinian evolution argument comes in to the fray.

Are you saying that some idea of intelligent design or creationism provides the only basis for the teleological argument?

However the above is not the only basis on which the teleological argument functions. Rather, we recognize that the world has objective meaning, a rational meaning, which we do not invent.

Okay so you’re not. You go on to say a bunch of random other stuff that I painfully read through once and I will just challenge you on this…

What purpose does life or the universe or all of “creation” (loaded word) serve for the supposed creator of everything?

Because yeah we have houses and if you see some totally strange alien-looking structure that seems like it could fit some shelter purpose then yeah you can say that it was designed. However, what kind of purpose could the universe possibly fulfill for some kind of infinite omnipotent, (+ whatever else) being? Supposedly this god does not need anything. It would have to first somehow tell you what purpose for it is. But if that happened, then you wouldn’t even need the teleological argument in the first place. See what I mean? Circle:

God told us what creation’s purpose is → We see that creation fulfills this purpose → This purpose has to have something which it serves → So it must serve God, therefore he exists.

Because remember, you can’t just see a purpose that serves a flower, and therefore say that that same purpose serves the dirt the flower is grown on. The fact that a wolf has teeth doesn’t serve much of a purpose for anything else besides the wolf. So even if you look at biological mechanisms and see that parts of a whole serve a purpose for that individual or the species or whatnot, it doesn’t mean it is a purpose that serves the “first cause,” whatever it may be.

So to reiterate basic question: What purpose does creation serve for some kind of god?

 

[Ghosty]

It depends on the context. Although its true that i mention a scientific theory, i am not stating my argument within the epistemological context of science. I don’t have to prove that physical reality is infinite in extent. All i have to do is show that if purpose can in principle be explained by physical reality, then the teleological argument fails, since its validity is based upon the principle that physical reality does not have the capacity or nature to produce and be the composite of objective teleological meaning.

The same is true of a first cause. If the beginning of the universe can in principle be explained by physics, then the argument that God is the first cause fails, and it fails miserably, since the validity of the argument is based upon the necessity of God, rather than the probability of a god. A God that is not necessary is not God, it is just another potential being.

Why should an atheist favor a theistic argument, when physical reality in principle can explain our existence?

It is one thing to claim that a possibility exists, another to show that it’s plausible, and yet another to show that it’s probable. To claim that “purpose” can be explained by mathematical necessity, one has to make a lot of assumptions, none of them being likely or even plausible. They are all possible, just as it’s possible that I’m a brain in a jar and you are a simulation being run on a computer that is stimulating my neurons. There is absolutely no way to definitively prove anything, because every experience and “proof” can be waved away by the possibility that the reality we are experiencing is fabricated.

So what we are left with is the best possible explanations given the evidence we are presented with by our senses, and that is what the various “proofs of God” are working with. The First Cause proof can’t stand up to the “brain in a jar” argument, but it does stand up against any other reasonable and likely conclusion based upon the evidence we can experience. The Teleological proof is similar; given that there is a) no experiential evidence for an infinite multiverse, and b) no compelling reason to believe in an infinite multiverse absent experiential evidence, there is no reason to conclude that “teleological” evolution is a mathematical necessity. Possible, yes; likely, no; compellingly reasonable, absolutely not.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Al_Moritz]

Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

The multiverse does not solve the design problem, see chapter 1.4. of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

 

[benedictus2]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

If you see amoeba, then wooly mammoth, then Mind Overmatter, how does that disprove design? If anything, the advances in cosmology has given that more support. And while cosmology is not exactly biology, evolution presupposes the Big Bang.

 

[benedictus2]

The multiverse does not solve the design problem

Exactly.

 

[benedictus2]

Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

How? Isn’t one of the laws of thermodynamics the tendency towards chaos rather than order?

How does one prove this mathematical necessity?

 

[benedictus2]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

Is Darwinian evolution truth?

Hardly.

But if you are speaking of the fact that nature took several billion years and in different stages to get to where it is now, how exactly is that inconsistent with design?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

It is one thing to claim that a possibility exists, another to show that it’s plausible, and yet another to show that it’s probable. To claim that “purpose” can be explained by mathematical necessity, one has to make a lot of assumptions, none of them being likely or even plausible.

No; actually you have to permit a lot of metaphysical contradictions. There is no logically possible physical explanation for physical reality. Possibility is only meaningful when it conforms to and is expressed within the framework of metaphysical principles. Otherwise we are not really talking about a possibility.

Of course i admit that there was a time when i did not know that it was impossible for physical reality to explain its own existence; but that was due to ignorance, not positive knowledge of its possibility. To know a principle possibility is to have metaphysical knowledge of why an event or being is possible. I am not speaking in the context of an epistemological limitation, in the sense of not knowing if something is impossible.

I use to come up with arguments just like yours until i understood the nature of what it is that believed in.

They are all possible, just as it’s possible that I’m a brain in a jar and you are a simulation being run on a computer that is stimulating my neurons.

The brain in the jar proposal is legitimate possibility. There is nothing about the concept itself that is in principle impossible. We know that it is a possibility in the sense that it does not contradict any metaphysical principles.

There is absolutely no way to definitively prove anything, because every experience and “proof” can be waved away by the possibility that the reality we are experiencing is fabricated.

There is no way to “scientifically” prove anything with absolute certitude, but this is different framework of knowledge. However, you can know something with absolute metaphysical certitude such as the fact that you exist, and you can also know with absolute certitude that God exists in terms of Gods general nature so long as you conform to and understand the metaphysical framework of knowledge in which the first cause argument operates. Fabrication, in order to be meaningful, has to conform to a certain standard of knowledge; it is impossible for everything to be a fabrication. Fabrication only has meaning within a framework of general truth. We can be deceived about the existence of particular entities, but it is not possible to be deceived about the general fact of existence.
Ghosty;8322425:

So what we are left with is the best possible explanations given the evidence we are presented with by our senses, and that is what the various “proofs of God” are working with.

No; that is what you are left with because you have failed to understand whats at stake.

The First Cause proof can’t stand up to the “brain in a jar” argument,

Then you have failed to understand the epistemological context of the first cause argument.

but it does stand up against any other reasonable and likely conclusion based upon the evidence we can experience. The Teleological proof is similar; given that there is a) no experiential evidence for an infinite multiverse, and b) no compelling reason to believe in an infinite multiverse absent experiential evidence, there is no reason to conclude that “teleological” evolution is a mathematical necessity. Possible, yes; likely, no; compellingly reasonable, absolutely not.

Peace and God bless!

You can save your peace and God bless, because within this statement you have just admitted that the God that Catholics worship does not exist. God by his very nature is necessary and intrinsic to the very meaning of existence. If you can somehow show to somebody that, in principle, it is metaphysically possible for the universe to be its own existential cause, then you have ceased to be in conformity with the Catholic understanding of God, or rather you hold on to your belief in God in contradiction of certain facts. Either that, or you have failed to understand what it is that you believe. Like i said, you do not understand what is at stake here, and i am tied of coming across catholics who do not take it seriously. If i am to believe in God, i cannot even admit in principle that there can be a physical explanation to existence because this is a contradiction to Gods metaphysical nature. If the atheist can do that, then i have no choice but to become a nihilist. They don’t have to show us scientific evidence of an actually infinite multiverse because as soon as we admit that it is in principle a metaphysical possibility, the nature of our belief about Gods nature leads necessarily to its own destruction.

Better to say that you have faith in Gods necessity than to mock him by saying that he is the more plausible possibility. If our belief is to survive there can be no possibility of an absolute physical explanation, no matter how small.

Catholics on this forum really need to start educating themselves.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You can save your peace and God bless, because within this statement you have just admitted that the God that Catholics worship does not exist. God by his very nature is necessary and intrinsic to the very meaning of existence. If you can somehow show to somebody that, in principle, it is metaphysically possible for the universe to be its own existential cause, then you have ceased to be in conformity with the Catholic understanding of God, or rather you hold on to your belief in God in contradiction of certain facts. Either that, or you have failed to understand what it is that you believe. Like i said, you do not understand what is at stake here, and i am tied of coming across catholics who do not take it seriously. If i am to believe in God, i cannot even admit in principle that there can be a physical explanation to existence because this is a contradiction to Gods metaphysical nature. If the atheist can do that, then i have no choice but to become a nihilist. They don’t have to show us scientific evidence of an actually infinite multiverse because as soon as we admit that it is in principle a metaphysical possibility, the nature of our belief about Gods nature leads necessarily to its own destruction.

Better to say that you have faith in Gods necessity than to mock him by saying that he is the more plausible possibility. If our belief is to survive there can be no possibility of an absolute physical explanation, no matter how small.

Catholics on this forum really need to start educating themselves.

Hold on, MindOverMatter2.

I find your zeal for metaphysics fully understandable, but I am afraid it makes you overreach here.

You appear to confusing what our faith requires us to believe about the metaphysics of God on one hand, with metaphysics as philosophical argument on the other.

Yes, we are required by Catholic faith to believe in God as necessary being, but we are not required to find the philosophical argument from necessity to be rationally so compelling, apart from faith, that we cannot allow for possible alternatives in philosophical reasoning (that these alternatives do not stand up to philosophical scrutiny is a diffferent matter). I personally find classical metaphysical arguments for the existence of God now less compelling than I used to, even though I am aware that they can be found perfectly valid, and instead prefer such arguments as the cosmological argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature or the argument from reason. However, apart from its role of providing persuasive arguments for the existence of God, I accept classical metaphysics as the philosophical basis for some crucial beliefs about the nature of God as held by the Catholic church.

I believe it is important not to lose sight of these analytical distinctions.

 

[Ghosty]

No; actually you have to permit a lot of metaphysical contradictions. There is no logically possible physical explanation for physical reality. Possibility is only meaningful when it conforms to and is expressed within the framework of metaphysical principles. Otherwise we are not really talking about a possibility.

In order to say this you have to assume that your experience of physical reality is, in fact, reality and not a construct. The “reality” that you experience has no logically possible physical explanation, but that is because of certain metaphysical standards that you accept because of your experience of physical reality. I’m not arguing that these metaphysical standards are wrong, quite the opposite, but I do think you are looking for a level of proof that is strictly impossible. To say that the only way God can exist is if there are no other possibilities is to negate any belief in God, or of anything outside yourself, because the only thing that is certain beyond any other possibility is your own existence.

Remember, metaphysics is derived from our experience of the reality around us. It is not an innate, self-evident knowledge, but a system of conclusions based on the assumption that the reality we experience is, in fact, real. Since there is no absolute certainty that our experience of reality is real (as you yourself admit), there is no absolute certainty that any given system of metaphysics is real.

There is no way to “scientifically” prove anything with absolute certitude, but this is different framework of knowledge. However, you can know something with absolute metaphysical certitude such as the fact that you exist, and you can also know with absolute certitude that God exists in terms of Gods general nature so long as you conform to and understand the metaphysical framework of knowledge in which the first cause argument operates. Fabrication, in order to be meaningful, has to conform to a certain standard of knowledge; it is impossible for everything to be a fabrication. Fabrication only has meaning within a framework of general truth. We can be deceived about the existence of particular entities, but it is not possible to be deceived about the general fact of existence.

I agree that we can’t be deceived about the fact of existence, namely our own, but everything beyond that is based on experience. In fact, even our existence is based on experience, but an experience that is self-evident by definition. Everything beyond that, every conclusion based upon this existence, is derived from experience which can be fabricated, even self-fabricated; even the metaphysical concepts of cause and effect are derived from experience that could possibly be fabricated.

The point being that metaphysical skepticism is a logical, possible position to hold. The real question is whether it’s a useful and healthy position to hold given the reality we find ourselves experiencing. So when you say that God must be a metaphysical certainty, that there must be no room for any kind of metaphysical doubt, you are setting a logically impossible standard.

No; that is what you are left with because you have failed to understand whats at stake.

There is nothing at stake with any metaphysical concept of God, because no matter how certain it is, no matter how compelling, it remains nothing more than a human mental construct. The “God of philosophy” might conform to the real Triune God, but strictly speaking he is, and can only ever be, a false god constructed by the mind; the human mind simply isn’t capable of reasoning itself to any essence of God.

Then you have failed to understand the epistemological context of the first cause argument.

In the “brain in the jar” argument it’s possible that my experience of cause and effect is a result of fabrication. In a sense this is true even with reality, because the “reality” of my experience is a fabrication by God, given to me and all living beings; my entire understanding of cause and effect is a gift from God, made to fit my creaturely limitations and not precisely the same as what God Himself “experiences” and understands. I am much too limited to know what “true” cause and effect entails, just as I am much too limited to know what “begotten of the Father” truly means.

This doesn’t render all knowledge and metaphysical arguments meaningless, as I said before. It just means that any attempt to glean metaphysical certitude from a human perspective is utterly doomed to failure, because by definition we are not working with a full and true understanding of absolute reality, only reality as designed for limited, creaturely experience by an infinitely transcendental Being.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

You can save your peace and God bless, because within this statement you have just admitted that the God that Catholics worship does not exist. God by his very nature is necessary and intrinsic to the very meaning of existence. If you can somehow show to somebody that, in principle, it is metaphysically possible for the universe to be its own existential cause, then you have ceased to be in conformity with the Catholic understanding of God, or rather you hold on to your belief in God in contradiction of certain facts. Either that, or you have failed to understand what it is that you believe. Like i said, you do not understand what is at stake here, and i am tied of coming across catholics who do not take it seriously. If i am to believe in God, i cannot even admit in principle that there can be a physical explanation to existence because this is a contradiction to Gods metaphysical nature. If the atheist can do that, then i have no choice but to become a nihilist. They don’t have to show us scientific evidence of an actually infinite multiverse because as soon as we admit that it is in principle a metaphysical possibility, the nature of our belief about Gods nature leads necessarily to its own destruction.

Better to say that you have faith in Gods necessity than to mock him by saying that he is the more plausible possibility. If our belief is to survive there can be no possibility of an absolute physical explanation, no matter how small.

Catholics on this forum really need to start educating themselves.

I don’t believe in a metaphysical, philosophical construct called God, so I’m in no danger of losing anything by saying that a philosophical construct of God is possibly false. I will go one step further and say that any possible philosophical, metaphysical argument for God is false, or at least limited to the point of being useless for any in-depth understanding of God.

Saying that the philosophical construct of God is the more plausible possibility is not mocking God at all, but rather recognizing that my rational mind can not reach to an understanding of God on its own, apart from Divine Grace, under any circumstances. It would actually be belittling God to say otherwise, and the true mocking of God comes from those who demand that God either fits within the rational constructs of a creature, or else He doesn’t exist.

Peace, and may the God-Who-Is bless you!

 

[Ghosty]

Hold on, MindOverMatter2.

I find your zeal for metaphysics fully understandable, but I am afraid it makes you overreach here.

You appear to confusing what our faith requires us to believe about the metaphysics of God on one hand, with metaphysics as philosophical argument on the other.

Yes, we are required by Catholic faith to believe in God as necessary being, but we are not required to find the philosophical argument from necessity to be rationally so compelling, apart from faith, that we cannot allow for possible alternatives in philosophical reasoning (that these alternatives do not stand up to philosophical scrutiny is a diffferent matter). I personally find classical metaphysical arguments for the existence of God now less compelling than I used to, even though I am aware that they can be found perfectly valid, and instead prefer such arguments as the cosmological argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature or the argument from reason. However, apart from its role of providing persuasive arguments for the existence of God, I accept classical metaphysics as the philosophical basis for some crucial beliefs about the nature of God as held by the Catholic church.

I believe it is important not to lose sight of these analytical distinctions.

Indeed. Our Faith insists on certain metaphysical necessities, but it is based on the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Divine Revelation, not because a metaphysician reached these conclusions through careful reasoning. Ultimately any metaphysical argument is merely a matter of persuasion, not “indisputable fact”, because by our own admission of Faith we are not working with a “full deck of cards” when it comes to understanding reality, since the basis of reality is the infinite, incomprehensible God.

The fact that we trust in our metaphysical conclusions (derived from the reality we experience) is because of the testimony of God that we are made in His Image, and that our understanding of the world reflects Him in some analogical way. We also know that our (rational) conception of God is very limited, infinitely removed from God’s essence.

This doesn’t make metaphysical exploration fruitless, far from it! There’s a reason I keep the Summa at my bedside even though I’ve read just about every article. Metaphysical exploration is a kind of prayer and devotion, an exploration of God according to our limited means assisted by Grace, and as I said before it can have persuasive weight. In the end, however, when compared with actual reality, the reality of God, it is “naught but straw”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t believe in a metaphysical, philosophical construct called God, so I’m in no danger of losing anything by saying that a philosophical construct of God is possibly false. I will go one step further and say that any possible philosophical, metaphysical argument for God is false, or at least limited to the point of being useless for any in-depth understanding of God.

Saying that the philosophical construct of God is the more plausible possibility is not mocking God at all, but rather recognizing that my rational mind can not reach to an understanding of God on its own, apart from Divine Grace, under any circumstances. It would actually be belittling God to say otherwise, and the true mocking of God comes from those who demand that God either fits within the rational constructs of a creature, or else He doesn’t exist.

Peace, and may the God-Who-Is bless you!

In other words you believe in a God whose existence in principle cannot be known with rational certitude. I am sorry but that is not a God that i believe in, and neither do i believe it is the God of Catholics. If it is, then i do not believe in the Catholic God.

What you fail to understand is that you are not just saying that you have an epistemological limitation in your capacity to know, but you are also saying that God does not exist, since if there is a necessary God who is necessarily the only logically possible cause of physical reality, then it cannot be possible to show that in principle physical reality can be its own cause/the source of its own power and existence. If its logically possible, then God is not a necessary ultimate reality/the source of all power and beings, and is therefore not God.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Hold on, MindOverMatter2.

I find your zeal for metaphysics fully understandable, but I am afraid it makes you overreach here.

You appear to confusing what our faith requires us to believe about the metaphysics of God on one hand, with metaphysics as philosophical argument on the other.

Yes, we are required by Catholic faith to believe in God as necessary being, but we are not required to find the philosophical argument from necessity to be rationally so compelling, apart from faith, that we cannot allow for possible alternatives in philosophical reasoning (that these alternatives do not stand up to philosophical scrutiny is a diffferent matter). I personally find classical metaphysical arguments for the existence of God now less compelling than I used to, even though I am aware that they can be found perfectly valid, and instead prefer such arguments as the cosmological argument from the fine-tuning of the laws of nature or the argument from reason. However, apart from its role of providing persuasive arguments for the existence of God, I accept classical metaphysics as the philosophical basis for some crucial beliefs about the nature of God as held by the Catholic church.

I believe it is important not to lose sight of these analytical distinctions.

Its is one thing to say that you do not find some argument compelling, and it is quite another thing to say that in principle (notice i keep saying that) physical reality could account for its own existence but is not necessarily the way it happened.

Such an argument is not one Catholics can afford to have.

If it is truly possible that “in principle”, physical reality can be understood as explaining itself, then it follows from that fact that God is not necessary/is not the source of all power and being. In so far as God is understood as having those qualities he is rendered non-existent as soon as you admit that it is in principle possible for physical reality to account for its self. It doesn’t matter how probable or improbable an intelligent cause is, it still follows that such a being is not the God of the Catholics.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In order to say this you have to assume that your experience of physical reality is, in fact, reality and not a construct.

No, i just have to admit that there is an “act” of existence. To experience an illusion is not the same as experiencing a true nothing (its impossible); to be the victim of an illusion is to be mistaken about the nature of something that exists. Something can appear to be more than the imagination or be mistaken as having a particular kind of extension beyond the mind, and you can be mistaken about that fact, but you cannot possibly be mistaken about the fact that you are having an “experience”, just like you cannot be mistaken about the fact that you exist; although you can be mistaken about what exists. Metaphysics, properly understood, is about the general act of existing, not the particularities of what exists. Therefore, apart from the fact that you don’t really understand metaphysics at all, it is not vulnerable to the kinds of illusions that you claim to be a severe impediment to it.

That there is an existence cannot be challenged rationally without destroying all forms of rationality itself. But that i am experiencing a particular deer that has an object extension beyond my mind can be challenged rationally because it is not necessary for the deer to have an extension beyond my experiencing it. However i can still know for certain that i am experiencing that which appears to have an objective extension.

The “reality” that you experience has no logically possible physical explanation, but that is because of certain metaphysical standards that you accept because of your experience of physical reality.

This is another fallacy which demonstrates your failure to really grasp the subject which you are talking about. I know of metaphysical standards because i experience rational distinctions/difference in reality and this has made me aware of logic. However my experience of those distinctions is not limited to whether or not physical reality has an extension beyond my mind or imagination. Again, you can challenge the objectivity of something but you cannot say that i am not having an experience of something, just like you cannot say that i don’t have certitude or true knowledge of my own existence. The knowledge of distinction is something that is true regardless of the nature through which i experience those distinctions. For example, the truth that a blue ball is not a red ball does not require that colors actually have an extension beyond my mind. I am merely required to have the experience of color in-order to know that truth or distinction.

I’m not arguing that these metaphysical standards are wrong.

To argue that metaphysical standards are wrong would be to argue that distinctions (distinctions being the basis upon which all forms of rational knowledge is defined, understood, and has meaning) don’t exist. But they clearly do, and to an extent that they cannot be considered to be illusions without destroying the rational capacity for knowledge.

…quite the opposite, but I do think you are looking for a level of proof that is strictly impossible.

If i can know that there is a general act existence which has distinctions/differences, then i can and i do have knowledge of such a proof.

To say that the only way God can exist is if there are no other possibilities is to negate any belief in God, or of anything outside yourself, because the only thing that is certain beyond any other possibility is your own existence.

This is not true. I have certitude of change and potentiality; neither of which require certitude of their extension beyond the mind. Based on these principles, and rational distinction, not only do i know that i am not ultimate due to the fact that i change, i can also know that there is an objective ultimate reality whose nature fits the basic metaphysical description of the Abrahamic God as understood by Catholics.
The question of objectivity is a problem for science when it divorces itself from the metaphysical root in which it has its origins.

Remember, metaphysics is derived from our experience of the reality around us.

Metaphysical proofs, properly understood, is derived from the general knowledge that there are distinctions/difference, that there is an “act of existing”; and more importantly by fact that there is change. Its not the objectivity of natural mediums through which we experience distinction and the act reality that concerns me. Its true that we must experience those mediums in-order to form knowledge, but the particular nature of those mediums or their location is not the concern of the metaphysican. My only concern is that there is an act of existence and that i experience distinction and difference as well as change; true and certain knowledge which cannot be negated in its most general form.

To imply that 2 + 2 = 4 is not certain knowledge because we gained it from an experience that might not be objective, is ridiculous. Physical reality need not have an extension beyond the mind in order for us to gain true and certain knowledge from it. Metaphysics is how we do that.

Like i know that 2 + 2 equals 4, i know for certain that God exists as defined by his general attributes.

 

[buffalo]

Science goes full circle?

 

[Ghosty]

MindOverMatter: I’m not saying that self-existence can’t be certain, so you can drop that line of argument.

As for being certain of change, you can’t actually be certain of that. You are certain of the experience of change, but that is not the same thing as change being necessary. In fact, by Catholic Dogma change is not necessary, because only God is necessary and God is utterly without change.

All you can be absolutely certain of is your own existence. You can’t even be certain that you are a contingent being. You accept that you are a contingent being because of your experience of “reality”, and the experience tells you that you are a contingent being. Since you can’t be certain of this experience, however, you can’t be certain that you are a contingent being.

Metaphysical arguments only work when both sides concede a point, but there is no absolute reason that a person must concede the point that reality is absolutely rational, that it exists outside the mind, that they themselves are not a non-contingent being making fantasy of a reality which follows certain principles. You seem to be looking for a level of certitude that is simply impossible.

Now, conceding that reality is essentially as we experience it, certain metaphysical demonstrations of God can be made, but not until these concessions are made. If someone says “I believe in rational exploration of the world around me, and that rational explanations can be found and are true”, then they have given you ground for demonstrating God.

Earlier you conceded (for the sake of argument) the existence of an infinite multiverse, and that is what I was addressing when I said that there was no compelling reason to make such a concession, but once that concession is made you are correct that mathematical necessity would lead to a universe with all the appearances of purpose. The Teleological Argument requires that this concession not be made, but then every metaphysical argument for God requires certain concessions be made and withheld.

When you say that you are a contingent being experiencing change, you are making a concession, a concession based on compelling evidence, but not an absolutely necessary concession. Once making that concession you can argue for a First Cause that is God, but since there is no absolute reason to make that concession there is no absolute reason that the First Cause argument is an absolute proof. It is simply the most manifest argument based on the most common metaphysical concessions most people make, namely that existence is “real”, and follows certain rational laws. It is a compelling argument, but it is not certitude in the sense you seem to be looking for.

When we say “there is an is” we are not making any concessions, because that much alone is certain. Everything beyond “there is an is” is based on some form of concession. Sane concessions, certainly, but concessions none-the-less. What’s more, every “God” we can come up with through philosophy and metaphysics is certainly not the real God, though there may be analogical comparisons made between the two; this is the apophatic aspect of Catholic theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter: I’m not saying that self-existence can’t be certain, so you can drop that line of argument.

As for being certain of change, you can’t actually be certain of that. You are certain of the experience of change, but that is not the same thing as change being necessary. In fact, by Catholic Dogma change is not necessary, because only God is necessary and God is utterly without change.

Ask your self this: how does one experience change without at least something changing? The Illusion of change cannot work without at least something changing; for example still pictures can appear in motion, but only if we put them in successive frames with a rate of change; its called a motion picture. The every nature of experience is successive. Its a logical contradiction to experience change and potentiality if there is non at all in existence.

Also, anybody who reads my argument properly, will see very easily that i never said nor did i imply that change is a necessary state of reality. You know it and i know it!

Since your pride is more important to you than to admit fault, this discussion is over.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

Hello again Mind

It appears that evolution shows regularities and is directed towards a common final cause, this is teleology at it’s best. I’m not seeing the problem, a little help?

 

[Ghosty]

I haven’t left the discussion yet, FYI, just no time at at sit down computer lately.

Peace and God bless!