Thomas's fifth way

[utunumsint]

Regularities means constraints which can be expressed as a set of laws. Intelligence of course cannot be the result of existence of regularities, final casualty, very oppositely is the result of challenge of awareness which exist in all layers of nature against regularities.

I’m just going to focus on the highlighted part of your post. Where does Aquinas’ fifth way state that human intelligence is the result of these regularities? Or to put it another way, that regularities found in nature cause human intelligence? Or any intelligence for that matter? What is being proved in the fifth way is that the regularities found in nature, as a whole, can only come from an intelligent first cause. But you seem to be understanding the exact opposite.

Final causality just cannot explain subject matter. We are not machines ruled by final cause. We are the result of fight against regularities and not vice versa. What does the job? Awareness which exist in consciousness throughout nature at all levels.

The human mind comes to know the formal regularities inherent in the natural world as abstract concepts. The human mind uses reason to discursively come to know the natures and essences of things and gradually human intelligence develops or uncovers the truth, being, and beauty of the material and mental world. That truth, being, and beauty that it uncovers leads the human mind to contemplate their source and origin in God, the source of all being, truth, goodness, and beauty. The very essence of the substantial form of humanity is that man is a rational animal. As Christians, we see this at the heart of what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The proof:

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Objection:

Existence of intelligence itself: This doesn’t explain the appearance of intelligence in human and other speices. To elaborate, one has to understand how an embryo works. The key question is whether an embryo is self-sufficient to turn into a human being? All evidences, from direct observation of embryo development to human being shows that the process is continuous. Hence, embryo is self-sufficient. Otherwise there should exist a point at which an intervention is needed before and not after. This point should be a point at which a non-intelligible embryo turns into an intelligent being so the intelligent being can self-sustain itself and this is not possible unless some other stuff, such as soul, is added to the system. This addition however should manifest itself as a change which we do not observe because the process is continuous.

The objection is facetious. It does not demonstrate self-sufficienct direction to an end. The author is trying to errect an exception to the general rule that all things in nature tend to a given end for the most part, unless impeded by some fortuitous accident or abnormality.

Everything in nature, even ecosystems tend toward an end. But this law of nature can only be accounted for if there is an Intelligence direction all things to their natural end. And this Intelligence we call God.

 

[Lucretius]

I find that Chesterton somehow made St Thomas’s Fifth Way Argument make sense for me in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter called “The Ethics of Elfland”, found here:

cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch4.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bahman]

I’m just going to focus on the highlighted part of your post. Where does Aquinas’ fifth way state that human intelligence is the result of these regularities? Or to put it another way, that regularities found in nature cause human intelligence? Or any intelligence for that matter? What is being proved in the fifth way is that the regularities found in nature, as a whole, can only come from an intelligent first cause. But you seem to be understanding the exact opposite.

What I am arguing is that the existence of intelligence is the result of awareness in all layers of nature which manifest itself into different form, such as human, animal, object, etc. Hence, the existence of regularity could be interpreted as an intrinsic property of nature which is the result of awareness itself. In simple word, consciousness is the most fundamental property of existence because that is the only way that awareness hence changes could manifest itself. Hence, we don’t need an external intelligent agent who take care of regularities.

The human mind comes to know the formal regularities inherent in the natural world as abstract concepts. The human mind uses reason to discursively come to know the natures and essences of things and gradually human intelligence develops or uncovers the truth, being, and beauty of the material and mental world. That truth, being, and beauty that it uncovers leads the human mind to contemplate their source and origin in God, the source of all being, truth, goodness, and beauty. The very essence of the substantial form of humanity is that man is a rational animal. As Christians, we see this at the heart of what it means to be created in the image and likeness of God.

God bless,
Ut

I do understand what you are saying but we are not talking about the origin universe in here. The question which is valid now, is whether universe can sustain itself or constantly needs an external intervention. I argue that the universe is self-sustained since such a quality such as astonishing intelligence can manifest itself without intervention hence simple quality such as regularities can be taken care as well.

 

[Bahman]

The objection is facetious. It does not demonstrate self-sufficienct direction to an end. The author is trying to errect an exception to the general rule that all things in nature tend to a given end for the most part, unless impeded by some fortuitous accident or abnormality.

Everything in nature, even ecosystems tend toward an end. But this law of nature can only be accounted for if there is an Intelligence direction all things to their natural end. And this Intelligence we call God.

No, I am bringing an example which explain how an embryo is self-sustained and could manifest itself to astonishing quality, human being. This means that awareness does exist in all layers of nature hence we do not need an external intervention. What I am saying is that if nature can manifest itself as intelligence beings then the manifestation of regularities are common sense.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I find that Chesterton somehow made St Thomas’s Fifth Way Argument make sense for me in his book Orthodoxy, in the chapter called “The Ethics of Elfland”, found here:

cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ch4.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius

I doubt he would get the point. Elfland is beyond his ken. I do believe that he is hooked on some Eastern philosophy that thinks the universe is a living conscious thing and needs no God or that it is God and we are little gods.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, I am bringing an example which explain how an embryo is self-sustained and could manifest itself to astonishing quality, human being. This means that awareness does exist in all layers of nature hence we do not need an external intervention. What I am saying is that if nature can manifest itself as intelligence beings then the manifestation of regularities are common sense.

The universe is not a conscious thing Bahman. Where could it get its consciousness. What Utunumsint, Lucretius and I have been trying to point out is that the entire universe, right down to ultimate particles and ’ forces, ’ act for an end, and are hell bent on attaining that end. For not even inanimate substances act without an end. And an end speaks of a cause, a cause which drives all reality toward its proper end. And this cause can only be God Almighty, who has encoded his purposes in the very nature of the substances he has created and given them the power and means to achieve those ends. But it is his Intelligence and Power that stands behind it all and directs it through the natural forces and powers of nature. That is why, for example, that living things all have a genetic code…

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

I doubt he would get the point. Elfland is beyond his ken. I do believe that he is hooked on some Eastern philosophy that thinks the universe is a living conscious thing and needs no God or that it is God and we are little gods.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

I have got the point. In fact I am providing an alternative framework which does not hold any anomaly as the the former framework holds.

 

[Bahman]

The universe is not a conscious thing Bahman. Where could it get its consciousness. What Utunumsint, Lucretius and I have been trying to point out is that the entire universe, right down to ultimate particles and ’ forces, ’ act for an end, and are hell bent on attaining that end. For not even inanimate substances act without an end. And an end speaks of a cause, a cause which drives all reality toward its proper end. And this cause can only be God Almighty, who has encoded his purposes in the very nature of the substances he has created and given them the power and means to achieve those ends. But it is his Intelligence and Power that stands behind it all and directs it through the natural forces and powers of nature. That is why, for example, that living things all have a genetic code…

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

I can argue that cause and effect is not possible without consciousness. I explained this argument before but you probably didn’t pay any attention to it. Consider a system being in a given state, S. This state causes another state which S’. S and S’ cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ which is problematic. It is problematic since S has to exist to cause S’ and should not exist to provide room for S’. The only way to resolve this problem is to assume that the awareness of S exist in consciousness, C, and that is C which causes S’. Could you please focus on what I said and let me know your opinion so I am not forced to repeat the argument for you again?

 

[utunumsint]

What I am arguing is that the existence of intelligence is the result of awareness in all layers of nature which manifest itself into different form, such as human, animal, object, etc. Hence, the existence of regularity could be interpreted as an intrinsic property of nature which is the result of awareness itself. In simple word, consciousness is the most fundamental property of existence because that is the only way that awareness hence changes could manifest itself. Hence, we don’t need an external intelligent agent who take care of regularities.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. As you said to Linus, this seems to be “an alternative framework” to Aquinas’ metaphysics, that, if true, would rule out the need for an external intelligent agent. So it does not directly address the fifth way, but attacks the fundamental metaphysical starting points.

I do understand what you are saying but we are not talking about the origin universe in here. The question which is valid now, is whether universe can sustain itself or constantly needs an external intervention. I argue that the universe is self-sustained since such a quality such as astonishing intelligence can manifest itself without intervention hence simple quality such as regularities can be taken care as well.

It is hard for me to take this seriously without learning from you the justifications for this position that seem implicit in this explanation. For example:

1-On what basis do you claim that “conscious awareness in all layers of nature”?
2-How does this conscious awareness cause the regularities we see in the universe?
3-How is it that the emergence of intelligence is proof that the universe is self sustaining?

Aquinas, I believe, would answer these questions as follows:
1-Intentionality, or final causality, is unconscious in all levels of nature up to the animal and human level where consciousness becomes possible.
2-Intentionality in substances in the universe cannot have its cause in itself, because then it would be the cause of its own existence. Then intentionality must come from an external source. Unless the conscious awareness you mention in this point is God. In which case, Aquinas would agree by make clear that this presence is in terms of sustaining power.
3-Aquinas would deny that the emergence of human intelligence is a strictly natural process. Animal intelligence, yes, but human, no. He has various ways to argue for the immateriality of the human intellect. But I don’t see that this is relevant to your point anyway.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can argue that cause and effect is not possible without consciousness. I explained this argument before but you probably didn’t pay any attention to it. Consider a system being in a given state, S. This state causes another state which S’. S and S’ cannot coexist hence S must vanishes before S’ which is problematic. It is problematic since S has to exist to cause S’ and should not exist to provide room for S’. The only way to resolve this problem is to assume that the awareness of S exist in consciousness, C, and that is C which causes S’. Could you please focus on what I said and let me know your opinion so I am not forced to repeat the argument for you again?

You have given this scenario before and I say again, I don’t understand what you mean by " a given state. " If you want me to understand what you are saying you will have to use declaritive sentences only, none of the symbolic stuff. Besides, if the Fifth way stands or any of the others, then we have established that God exists and whatever follows upon that knowledge is true.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[Lucretius]

St. Thomas (following Aristotle) defines what he means by final cause here: newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm#article4 (in the “On the Contrary” paragraph).

Do you understand the Aristotelian metaphysical framework in which he writes? If so, you should understand that your objection misses the point. If you disagree with Aristotle’s understanding of being, that’s one thing, but you can’t attack the Ways directly then, but rather attack the premises on which they stand (premises that are largely from Aristotle).

I’ll write one last thing, thought, St. Thomas thought that theses arguments were not five separate arguments, but rather one argument with five parts. He personally thought that the First Way was by far the strongest, and thought that the Fifth Way was the weakest (it has become stronger since the advent of Science and the studying of the Laws of Nature). I actually think that the Fifth Way is one of the strongest parts of his argument now (the unmoved mover is stronger still, in my opinion).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bahman]

You have given this scenario before and I say again, I don’t understand what you mean by " a given state. " If you want me to understand what you are saying you will have to use declaritive sentences only, none of the symbolic stuff. Besides, if the Fifth way stands or any of the others, then we have established that God exists and whatever follows upon that knowledge is true.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

System? Anything around you. For example a falling stone and earth. The system is subject to change since stone is falling. Now consider two snapshots of this system one, the second (S), follows another, first (F). We can say that F causes S and you can go with the rest of my argument.

 

[Bahman]

St. Thomas (following Aristotle) defines what he means by final cause here: newadvent.org/summa/1044.htm#article4 (in the “On the Contrary” paragraph).

I did read the article and bring my objections in this thread. My main object to the fifth way still stands and I would be happy to hear your opinion.

Do you understand the Aristotelian metaphysical framework in which he writes? If so, you should understand that your objection misses the point. If you disagree with Aristotle’s understanding of being, that’s one thing, but you can’t attack the Ways directly then, but rather attack the premises on which they stand (premises that are largely from Aristotle).

Ok. That is what I did. I brought an counterexample. Isn’t that enough? But I will work on that too when I have time.

I’ll write one last thing, thought, St. Thomas thought that theses arguments were not five separate arguments, but rather one argument with five parts. He personally thought that the First Way was by far the strongest, and thought that the Fifth Way was the weakest (it has become stronger since the advent of Science and the studying of the Laws of Nature). I actually think that the Fifth Way is one of the strongest parts of his argument now (the unmoved mover is stronger still, in my opinion).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Ok. I would be happy to see your opinion on the other related thread too, since it seems it seems no one interested on those.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

…]
I’ll write one last thing, thought, St. Thomas thought that theses arguments were not five separate arguments, but rather one argument with five parts.

I never heard this before. What is your source?

Pax Christi

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

System? Anything around you. For example a falling stone and earth. The system is subject to change since stone is falling. Now consider two snapshots of this system one, the second (S), follows another, first (F). We can say that F causes S and you can go with the rest of my argument.

Give me a concrete example or two of what you are talking about.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Give me a concrete example or two of what you are talking about.
Linus2nd

I gave an example: Consider a falling stone and earth as the system. The system is subject to change since stone is falling. Now consider two snapshots of this system the first snapshot (F) comes before the the second snapshot(S). We can say that F causes S. F however cannot coexist with S. Hence F must disappear before S. This is problematic since it requires that F to exist and exist not. How do you resolve this paradox?

Anything which changes is subjected to this paradox.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I gave an example: Consider a falling stone and earth as the system. The system is subject to change since stone is falling. Now consider two snapshots of this system the first snapshot (F) comes before the the second snapshot(S). We can say that F causes S. F however cannot coexist with S. Hence F must disappear before S. This is problematic since it requires that F to exist and exist not. How do you resolve this paradox?

Anything which changes is subjected to this paradox.

Well you haven’t explained it very well. ’ F ’ doesn’t cause anything, it is just a snapshot. Perhaps you can point to some link on Youtube where someone is discussing the same idea. Because your explanation just isn’t making sense.

Linus2nd

 

[Lucretius]

I gave an example: Consider a falling stone and earth as the system. The system is subject to change since stone is falling. Now consider two snapshots of this system the first snapshot (F) comes before the the second snapshot(S). We can say that F causes S. F however cannot coexist with S. Hence F must disappear before S. This is problematic since it requires that F to exist and exist not. How do you resolve this paradox?

Anything which changes is subjected to this paradox.

From my experience, modern philosophers use the term “cause” slightly differently then St. Thomas. When modern people think of cause, they seem to think of something like an event, an action, or a motion, while Aristotle and St. Thomas think of cause as a thing, an agent, a substance, etc. A modern person might say that “Lucretius had thrown a rock, causing the window to break” while St. Thomas might have said “Lucretius was the cause of the pile of glass by means of a rock.” The first is focusing on the action of the event (the motion), while the second is focusing on the objects or things involved with the change: Lucretius, the rock, and the pile of glass.

The modern might think that the motion caused a state of equilibrium to change, while St. Thomas would think that an agent caused the patient to change (specifically that the agent actualized the potency of the patient).

The modern’s view of causality is thus dynamic and fluid, while the Aristotelian’s view is static and solid.

Linusthe2nd, what are your thoughts on this?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I never heard this before. What is your source?

Pax Christi

Linus2nd

St. Thomas is my source. He wasn’t using the Five Ways to prove five different entities, but rather one entity. Often times people try and argue that the unmoved Mover, the First Cause, the Necessary Being, etc. are not necessarily the same thing. I word my explanation differently in order to better express that all these arguments are trying to point at the same being.

Christi pax,

Lucretius