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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TAquinas21 said:
At the quantum level, causality and locality seem to break down. And at the Big Bang, scientists admit they haven’t a clue what space, time and causality are doing as a singularity explodes from a quantum mystery into a new universe. Physics is now seriously looking into the possibility of multiverses, where universes are “big banging” into existence all the time, and that there may be many universes coming and going infinitely, and many of them may have laws of physics operating within them that are different from ours.
Click to expand...
I quote here from Spitzer’s “New Proofs for the Existence of God”. (page 5)

The classical Big Bang model seemed to indicate a beginning of the universe at a Hawking-Penrose singularity, but this was mitigated by the contemporary Big Bang model, which opened up the possibility of an early quantum cosmological era and inflationary dynamic (allowing our universe to be but one amidst a multiplicity of possible universes within a theoretical multiverse). This mitigating view was itself subsequently mitigated by the discovery of Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin that every inflationary model universe (and / or multiverse) must have a beginning. Since this indicates an edge of time (prior to which there is no time), the conclusions of Borde, Guth and Vilenkin point strongly to a creation of the universe (*from no previously existing physical matter-energy).*******The cause of such a creation would then have to transcend our universe (and any multiverse in which it may be situated).
 
TAQUINAS

We don’t know if there was a beginning to the universe, or multiverse, at which “time” a first cause would have been applied. The physical universe may not have a beginning as such, and perhaps one day the science of physics will that shed light on that question.

You have fallen into the trap of Siger of Brabant, which Aquinas adequately exposed and refuted.

A thing cannot be true scientifically and false theologically. If you are a Catholic and believe that God created the universe, you cannot as a scientist hold the view that the universe never had a beginning. So you might as well stop looking for proof to that effect.

You’ll never find it anyway, since it would take an eternity to find that the universe is eternal. 😃
 
There’s no evolution/natural selection to account for the origin of the universe.

And, as people here have demonstrated, natural selection is purposeful.
 
I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion.

I am open to hearing ideas about that opinion.

If I butted in, please inform me and I will stay out.

Here is the opinion.

When I study a a stapler, cup, are an old typewriter, it is obvious that they were made by a person with reason. Reason was infused into the materials.

We could call that passive reason, that is the reason infused into the material.

We could call the reason in the person active reason.

When I study the material world about me, I can discern its passive reason with my ability to reason.

That passive reason was infused into the physical world; my reason is certain of it.

There was at least one agent that introduced reason into the physical world.

I call that (or those) being(s) active creative being(s).

I also find it interesting that the reason in math has no physical qualities.

Math which is the tool of the physical sciences has no mass, volume or any other physical characteristics. The physical sciences are understood by a product of the human intellect which is beyond the material realm. This math is created by our reason and is immaterial. Our intellect is able to discern passive reason by its active reason. And our intellect is immaterial too. An immaterial being, our intellect, created math. That immaterial created math was created by an immaterial or spiritual being.

I am not here to fight, but to share a philosophical opinion.
 
Hi TAquinas21,

You said: To extrapolate causation to a first cause presumes we understand physics to an extent that we simply don’t. We don’t know if there was a beginning to the universe, or multiverse, at which “time” a first cause would have been applied. The physical universe may not have a beginning as such, and perhaps one day the science of physics will that shed light on that question. Not to worry, though, if there was no beginning as such, then God created a universe that had no beginning, since God created time and the very rules of causation, God is not constrained to play by the rules of time and causation, as we humans must in the phenomenon of everyday life.

My Answer:
"Aquinas doesn’t argue from the claim that “everything has a cause” nor does he argue that the “universe had a beginning and that God must have been the cause of that beginning”. His argument is to show that given that there are in fact some causes of various sorts, the nature of cause and effect entails that God is necessary as an uncaused cause of the universe “even if we assume that the universe has always existed and thus had no beginning”. It isn’t as if the universe wouldn’t have got started if God hadn’t knocked down the first domino at some point in the distant past; it is that it wouldn’t exist “here and now”, or undergo change or exhibit final causes “Here and now” unless God were “Here and now”, and at every moment, sustaining it in being, change and goal-directedness. "

Quote from Edward Feser from the book “The Last Superstition”

Notice: Aquinas describes the series of causes as ONE EVENT IN THE HERE AND NOW.

How would you answer this?
 
buffalo said:
Did I miss something?
Click to expand...
Ghosty said:
Evolution actually strongly supports the Teleological Argument because it is a teleological theory at its heart. The whole point of the Theory of Evolution is that life develops and adapts with a purpose and direction, and according to a set system.

What’s more, evolution works in a very rational manner despite the fact that the animals and plants involved don’t make rational choices towards adaptation (humans being the exception, obviously). This points to, though doesn’t absolutely prove, a rational mind behind evolution.

Peace and God bless!
Click to expand...
 
I tried to condense a couple of the proofs to short statements.

Proof I: Every effect has a cause, and every effect is the cause for a subsequent effect. Projecting back in time: (1) it is certain that there must have been a first cause; and (2) it is certain that only a God is capable of initiating that first cause. Therefore God exists. QED

The following symbolic sequence represents the proof, abbreviated.

G: God
E: Effect
C:Cause
G,E,C,E,C,E,…,C,E
God Exists. QED

Proof II: We find a watch on the beach, and conclude a watchmaker must exist. Since we find that the beach, and the universe in which it resides, is infinitely more complex than the watch, we are compelled to conclude that its creator is God. Therefore, God exists. QED

Abbreviated argument.

Watch: Watchmaker
Universe: God
God Exists. QED

Each of these proofs fit on a T-shirt. Every parish should print some up and sell them as a funds raiser for the youth group.

Ok, you got me. I’ll accept the proofs as valid.

What confused me was that forty years ago, in an Intro to Philosophy class, we examined all of the proofs available at the time in great depth. All of them were found to be invalid from a rigorous logic perspective. Basically, we found the proofs are all circular in some way, and they make big jumps in inference that are really not warranted. The professor was probably an atheist, and his bias skewed his reasoning, or perhaps he was hostile to Christianity.

I wonder why so many people don’t accept the proofs. As proofs, they remove all the challenge of belief in God, and a worldwide consensus on the existence of God should be embraced by all, and this would lead to a just and harmonious world. With proof, there is no longer a need to belief. Proof moves the issue from belief to knowing.

When Einstein first published General Relativity, many, if not most scientists, rejected the theory. Some said it was ridiculously counterintuitive, and some even slammed it as “Jewish science.” But after the eclipse that demonstrated that mass bends light by warping space, almost all scientists were compelled to accept Relativity, no matter how counterintuitive relativity was, no matter how “Jewish” the science. After the eclipse experiment, and after perhaps hundreds of subsequent demonstrations and measurements that show Relativity matches physical reality, zero physicists reject relativity.

A valid proof stops debate cold – end of discussion. We don’t believe that E=mC2 – we know it – it’s a fact. Since we know God exists by way of several compelling proofs, why is there any debate still going on??
 
TAquinas21 said:
I tried to condense a couple of the proofs to short statements.

Proof I: Every effect has a cause, and every effect is the cause for a subsequent effect. Projecting back in time: (1) it is certain that there must have been a first cause; and (2) it is certain that only a God is capable of initiating that first cause. Therefore God exists. QED

The following symbolic sequence represents the proof, abbreviated.

G: God
E: Effect
C:Cause
G,E,C,E,C,E,…,C,E
God Exists. QED

Proof II: We find a watch on the beach, and conclude a watchmaker must exist. Since we find that the beach, and the universe in which it resides, is infinitely more complex than the watch, we are compelled to conclude that its creator is God. Therefore, God exists. QED

Abbreviated argument.

Watch: Watchmaker
Universe: God
God Exists. QED

Each of these proofs fit on a T-shirt. Every parish should print some up and sell them as a funds raiser for the youth group.

Ok, you got me. I’ll accept the proofs as valid.

What confused me was that forty years ago, in an Intro to Philosophy class, we examined all of the proofs available at the time in great depth. All of them were found to be invalid from a rigorous logic perspective. Basically, we found the proofs are all circular in some way, and they make big jumps in inference that are really not warranted. The professor was probably an atheist, and his bias skewed his reasoning, or perhaps he was hostile to Christianity.

I wonder why so many people don’t accept the proofs. As proofs, they remove all the challenge of belief in God, and a worldwide consensus on the existence of God should be embraced by all, and this would lead to a just and harmonious world. With proof, there is no longer a need to belief. Proof moves the issue from belief to knowing.

When Einstein first published General Relativity, many, if not most scientists, rejected the theory. Some said it was ridiculously counterintuitive, and some even slammed it as “Jewish science.” But after the eclipse that demonstrated that mass bends light by warping space, almost all scientists were compelled to accept Relativity, no matter how counterintuitive relativity was, no matter how “Jewish” the science. After the eclipse experiment, and after perhaps hundreds of subsequent demonstrations and measurements that show Relativity matches physical reality, zero physicists reject relativity.

A valid proof stops debate cold – end of discussion. We don’t believe that E=mC2 – we know it – it’s a fact. Since we know God exists by way of several compelling proofs, why is there any debate still going on??
Click to expand...
Great! I’m relieved!
 
TAquinas21 said:
I tried to condense a couple of the proofs to short statements.

Proof I: Every effect has a cause, and every effect is the cause for a subsequent effect. Projecting back in time: (1) it is certain that there must have been a first cause; and (2) it is certain that only a God is capable of initiating that first cause. Therefore God exists. QED

The following symbolic sequence represents the proof, abbreviated.

G: God
E: Effect
C:Cause
G,E,C,E,C,E,…,C,E
God Exists. QED

Proof II: We find a watch on the beach, and conclude a watchmaker must exist. Since we find that the beach, and the universe in which it resides, is infinitely more complex than the watch, we are compelled to conclude that its creator is God. Therefore, God exists. QED

Abbreviated argument.

Watch: Watchmaker
Universe: God
God Exists. QED

Each of these proofs fit on a T-shirt. Every parish should print some up and sell them as a funds raiser for the youth group.

Ok, you got me. I’ll accept the proofs as valid.

What confused me was that forty years ago, in an Intro to Philosophy class, we examined all of the proofs available at the time in great depth. All of them were found to be invalid from a rigorous logic perspective. Basically, we found the proofs are all circular in some way, and they make big jumps in inference that are really not warranted. The professor was probably an atheist, and his bias skewed his reasoning, or perhaps he was hostile to Christianity.

I wonder why so many people don’t accept the proofs. As proofs, they remove all the challenge of belief in God, and a worldwide consensus on the existence of God should be embraced by all, and this would lead to a just and harmonious world. With proof, there is no longer a need to belief. Proof moves the issue from belief to knowing.

When Einstein first published General Relativity, many, if not most scientists, rejected the theory. Some said it was ridiculously counterintuitive, and some even slammed it as “Jewish science.” But after the eclipse that demonstrated that mass bends light by warping space, almost all scientists were compelled to accept Relativity, no matter how counterintuitive relativity was, no matter how “Jewish” the science. After the eclipse experiment, and after perhaps hundreds of subsequent demonstrations and measurements that show Relativity matches physical reality, zero physicists reject relativity.

A valid proof stops debate cold – end of discussion. We don’t believe that E=mC2 – we know it – it’s a fact. Since we know God exists by way of several compelling proofs, why is there any debate still going on??
Click to expand...
Let us assume that the arguments presented are structurally and logically correct. They still fail to prove the existence of God.

They prove the existence of a Creator, but say nothing about its properties or motivations. Nor do they imply a gender designation. They fail to demonstrate that the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, or singularity which are attributed to God, also apply to the hypothetical Creator. They do not even begin to touch moral qualities. Nor do they address this Creator’s motivations in creating a universe with us in it. In simpler terms, they do not prove the existence of the God in which Christians, and presumably you, believe.

Consider the excellent watchmaker example. The existence of a watch tells us nothing about the characteristics or nature of its source. The “watchmaker” is far more likely to be a factory in China manned by hundreds of mindless machines, where no human being even touches a watch-spring, gear, or tiny screws. The purpose of the factory is most likely to make lots of yuan for its owners, Its wider purpose might be to help support the Chinese government’s efforts to dominate the globe.

Now you know why a debate persists.
 
greylorn said:
Let us assume that the arguments presented are structurally and logically correct. They still fail to prove the existence of God.

They prove the existence of a Creator, but say nothing about its properties or motivations. Nor do they imply a gender designation. They fail to demonstrate that the properties of omnipotence, omniscience, or singularity which are attributed to God, also apply to the hypothetical Creator. They do not even begin to touch moral qualities. Nor do they address this Creator’s motivations in creating a universe with us in it. In simpler terms, they do not prove the existence of the God in which Christians, and presumably you, believe.

Consider the excellent watchmaker example. The existence of a watch tells us nothing about the characteristics or nature of its source. The “watchmaker” is far more likely to be a factory in China manned by hundreds of mindless machines, where no human being even touches a watch-spring, gear, or tiny screws. The purpose of the factory is most likely to make lots of yuan for its owners, Its wider purpose might be to help support the Chinese government’s efforts to dominate the globe.

Now you know why a debate persists.
Click to expand...
 
I was writing a little tong-in-cheek in the post you responded to. The debate persists for the reasons you stated, and because the proofs are not compelling logically or empirically. I really doubt there is a Catholic seminary anywhere that claims these proofs, or any proofs, are rigorously valid, and I was a bit surprised to find this debate alive and well on a Catholic forum. The seminaries would teach them in the context Thomas Aquinas’ thought, his historical context and his theological contributions, but not teach that they are rigorously correct. If they were seen as rigorously correct by the Vatican Curia, they would have been added long ago to the list of positions we must hold as Catholics. If a person already held belief in God, the proofs help back-fill a rationale for a belief held a priori. And, that’s Ok. In response to the question that initiated this thread: Does evolution invalidate the Teleological Argument; the answer is no, since the argument is invalid from the get go, it doesn’t need evolution to do it in. Evolution may appear to conflict with the 6-day Genesis creation, but once Genesis is read as an allegory (as St Augustine did in the fourth century), then there is no conflict. Evolution can be seen as the Creation continuing before our eyes. And, if stupendous complexity in life is evidence for God, then there is more evidence.

.
Belief in a God is reasonable, however, as articulated in William James’ essay: “The will to believe.” The following link has a summary of the essay: webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/misc/james.html

The William James essay is the best argument I have seen for the reasonableness of belief, but reasonableness is not a proof.

I suppose like most Catholics, I came into the faith via the home we grew up in. I have found nothing better since then. I like Thomas Aquinas, invalid proofs notwithstanding, because he integrated Greek Philosophy into the tradition, and I think, in doing so, he helped Catholicism become an integrator of truth and insight from sources at large. Catholicism is not intrinsically fundamentalism, although you wouldn’t know it from some of the TV programs. We never need fear what we might see through a telescope or a microscope. Evolution is the continuation of Genesis. We can acknowledge God behind everything, and employ the scientific method to figure out how things work as best we can. In addition, I am enabled and encouraged by my Baptism, to seek truth at large, debate ethics, and apply my intellect in the world.

BTW: there isn’t any valid proof for the non-existence of God either.

This will be my last post on this thread. If this thread represents the general quality to be found on the forum generally, I won’t be a participant for long.
 
TAquinas21 said:
I tried to condense a couple of the proofs to short statements.

Proof I: Every effect has a cause, and every effect is the cause for a subsequent effect. Projecting back in time: (1) it is certain that there must have been a first cause; and (2) it is certain that only a God is capable of initiating that first cause. Therefore God exists. QED

The following symbolic sequence represents the proof, abbreviated.

G: God
E: Effect
C:Cause
G,E,C,E,C,E,…,C,E
God Exists. QED

Proof II: We find a watch on the beach, and conclude a watchmaker must exist. Since we find that the beach, and the universe in which it resides, is infinitely more complex than the watch, we are compelled to conclude that its creator is God. Therefore, God exists. QED

Abbreviated argument.

Watch: Watchmaker
Universe: God
God Exists. QED

Each of these proofs fit on a T-shirt. Every parish should print some up and sell them as a funds raiser for the youth group.

Ok, you got me. I’ll accept the proofs as valid.

What confused me was that forty years ago, in an Intro to Philosophy class, we examined all of the proofs available at the time in great depth. All of them were found to be invalid from a rigorous logic perspective. Basically, we found the proofs are all circular in some way, and they make big jumps in inference that are really not warranted. The professor was probably an atheist, and his bias skewed his reasoning, or perhaps he was hostile to Christianity.

I wonder why so many people don’t accept the proofs. As proofs, they remove all the challenge of belief in God, and a worldwide consensus on the existence of God should be embraced by all, and this would lead to a just and harmonious world. With proof, there is no longer a need to belief. Proof moves the issue from belief to knowing.
Click to expand...
Not quite. All that these proofs are able to prove is a Creator-God. The most that you arrive at is Deism ( which is probably why Flew is one). But to move beyond the Creator, the God who is love - that requires faith.
When Einstein first published General Relativity, many, if not most scientists, rejected the theory. Some said it was ridiculously counterintuitive, and some even slammed it as “Jewish science.” But after the eclipse that demonstrated that mass bends light by warping space, almost all scientists were compelled to accept Relativity, no matter how counterintuitive relativity was, no matter how “Jewish” the science. After the eclipse experiment, and after perhaps hundreds of subsequent demonstrations and measurements that show Relativity matches physical reality, zero physicists reject relativity.
Click to expand...
A valid proof stops debate cold – end of discussion. We don’t believe that E=mC2 – we know it – it’s a fact. Since we know God exists by way of several compelling proofs, why is there any debate still going on??
Click to expand...
Because there are some who believe that proof for God must be scientific. Which of course is a stupid claim. You will find that atheists (especially those of the newer variety) are not really all that rational.

I mean just think of the scientists these days like Fred Hoyle who have come to the conclusion that the universe must have been designed by and a Super Intelligent being.

Atheists I think are atheists by a willful denial of reason. Then you have the likes of Dawkins who despite probably being good at science are terrible with logic.

As to your last point, you are confusing science with metaphysics. The topic of God’s existence cannot be boiled down to a scientifc equation because it is metaphysical - beyond physics.
 
TAquinas21 said:
I was writing a little tong-in-cheek in the post you responded to. The debate persists for the reasons you stated, and because the proofs are not compelling logically or empirically. I really doubt there is a Catholic seminary anywhere that claims these proofs, or any proofs, are rigorously valid, and I was a bit surprised to find this debate alive and well on a Catholic forum. The seminaries would teach them in the context Thomas Aquinas’ thought, his historical context and his theological contributions, but not teach that they are rigorously correct. If they were seen as rigorously correct by the Vatican Curia, they would have been added long ago to the list of positions we must hold as Catholics. If a person already held belief in God, the proofs help back-fill a rationale for a belief held a priori. And, that’s Ok. In response to the question that initiated this thread: Does evolution invalidate the Teleological Argument; the answer is no, since the argument is invalid from the get go, it doesn’t need evolution to do it in. Evolution may appear to conflict with the 6-day Genesis creation, but once Genesis is read as an allegory (as St Augustine did in the fourth century), then there is no conflict. Evolution can be seen as the Creation continuing before our eyes. And, if stupendous complexity in life is evidence for God, then there is more evidence.

.
Belief in a God is reasonable, however, as articulated in William James’ essay: “The will to believe.” The following link has a summary of the essay: webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/misc/james.html

The William James essay is the best argument I have seen for the reasonableness of belief, but reasonableness is not a proof.

I suppose like most Catholics, I came into the faith via the home we grew up in. I have found nothing better since then. I like Thomas Aquinas, invalid proofs notwithstanding, because he integrated Greek Philosophy into the tradition, and I think, in doing so, he helped Catholicism become an integrator of truth and insight from sources at large. Catholicism is not intrinsically fundamentalism, although you wouldn’t know it from some of the TV programs. We never need fear what we might see through a telescope or a microscope. Evolution is the continuation of Genesis. We can acknowledge God behind everything, and employ the scientific method to figure out how things work as best we can. In addition, I am enabled and encouraged by my Baptism, to seek truth at large, debate ethics, and apply my intellect in the world.

BTW: there isn’t any valid proof for the non-existence of God either.

This will be my last post on this thread. If this thread represents the general quality to be found on the forum generally, I won’t be a participant for long.
Click to expand...
Have you read “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Spitzer. I suggest you get a copy. It is not for the faint hearted. He gets very scientific so those and very philosophical. It is heavy reading but I think if you give it the effort then you will be richly rewarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top