Thomas's fifth way

[Bahman]

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.

 

[Bahman]

Embro from 0 to 9 months.

 

[TheSecondMile]

I think St. Thomas would agree that the embryo contains an intrinsic principle of change that guides its development. The point St. Thomas is making is that things lacking cognition cannot tend toward an end without being directed by something with intelligence.

St. Thomas gives the example of an arrow being directed by an archer. The arrow is put in motion by the archer but, once in motion, the arrow tends toward its target. Still, there has to be some intelligence to put it in motion, just as the embryo needs something intelligent to put it in motion.

 

[Bahman]

I think St. Thomas would agree that the embryo contains an intrinsic principle of change that guides its development. The point St. Thomas is making is that things lacking cognition cannot tend toward an end without being directed by something with intelligence.

St. Thomas gives the example of an arrow being directed by an archer. The arrow is put in motion by the archer but, once in motion, the arrow tends toward its target. Still, there has to be some intelligence to put it in motion, just as the embryo needs something intelligent to put it in motion.

We know who play the role of archer: Our mothers and fathers.

 

[TheSecondMile]

We know who play the role of archer: Our mothers and fathers.

Right, and what was the efficient cause of their motion? It is evident that this argument is closely tied to the first proof.

 

[Bahman]

Right, and what was the efficient cause of their motion? It is evident that this argument is closely tied to the first proof.

This proof should stand alone if it is a proof. I come to first proof shortly.

 

[TheSecondMile]

This proof should stand alone if it is a proof. I come to first proof shortly.

The first proof establishes that nothing moves itself and the fifth proof establishes that motion is directed by intelligence. Surely, there may be some overlap in defending the premises of the argument but that does not undermine the soundness of the argument.

 

[utunumsint]

The first proof establishes that nothing moves itself and the fifth proof establishes that motion is directed by intelligence. Surely, there may be some overlap in defending the premises of the argument but that does not undermine the soundness of the argument.

Agreed, and because all these arguments converge on the same being, this is all the more true, especially given Aquinas’ understanding of the convertibility of the transcendentals. Being, truth, goodness, and unity, are all convertible.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

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.

Yes it does. Even if human intelligence is completely a by product of physical processes, this proof rests on the fact that final causality is built into the very fabric of all intelligent and non-intelligent beings. All substances act towards an end from the most simple to the most complex. That directedness cannot be explained by chance, since then there would be no regularities observable in the universe.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

Yes it does. Even if human intelligence is completely a by product of physical processes, this proof rests on the fact that final causality is built into the very fabric of all intelligent and non-intelligent beings. All substances act towards an end from the most simple to the most complex. That directedness cannot be explained by chance, since then there would be no regularities observable in the universe.

God bless,
Ut

Human intelligence is the result of challenging awareness, takes place in consciousness, by constraints or conditions. This statement obviously applies to you as a mature human being hence it has to be true if we rewind the movie.

 

[utunumsint]

Human intelligence is the result of challenging awareness, takes place in consciousness, by constraints or conditions. This statement obviously applies to you as a mature human being hence it has to be true if we rewind the movie.

I don’t understand what you are saying. Probably because I have no background in whatever metaphysics or philosophy you are getting this from.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

I don’t understand what you are saying. Probably because I have no background in whatever metaphysics or philosophy you are getting this from.

God bless,
Ut

It is not that difficult. How do you learn a new idea. A new idea by definition is something which does not exist in your awareness and it has a conflict with what you know as reality. How do you digest the new idea? Through the challenge of your awareness with subject matter. That is how we learn new idea.

 

[utunumsint]

It is not that difficult. How do you learn a new idea. A new idea by definition is something which does not exist in your awareness and it has a conflict with what you know as reality. How do you digest the new idea? Through the challenge of your awareness with subject matter. That is how we learn new idea.

OK. But I don’t see how this relates to Aquinas’ proof in the fifth way.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

OK. But I don’t see how this relates to Aquinas’ proof in the fifth way.

God bless,
Ut

It does relate since your existence as a conscious being with certain level awareness from reality which is not complete, the challenge, put you in the motion to search the truth and know the truth and truth will set you free, As Jesus has stated, hence there is no need for an external agent.

 

[utunumsint]

It does relate since your existence as a conscious being with certain level awareness from reality which is not complete, the challenge, put you in the motion to search the truth and know the truth and truth will set you free, As Jesus has stated, hence there is no need for an external agent.

Why does this proof have to explain the existence of intelligent beings? Its premise is based on “things which lack intelligence”.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

Why does this proof have to explain the existence of intelligent beings? Its premise is based on “things which lack intelligence”.

God bless,
Ut

This proof deals with the existence of an external intelligent being which as we will hopefully agree it is not necessary.

 

[utunumsint]

This proof deals with the existence of an external intelligent being which as we will hopefully agree it is not necessary.

This proof is based on final causality in the material world. It does not talk about the emergence of human intelligence. So your objection seems to completely miss the point.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

This proof is based on final causality in the material world. It does not talk about the emergence of human intelligence. So your objection seems to completely miss the point.

God bless,
Ut

No. This proof as it is stated deals with the existence of an intelligent agent so called God:* “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.” *

 

[utunumsint]

OK, I’m going to go back to your original post to see if I missed something:

Existence of intelligence itself:

Right, so somehow the existence of human intelligence seems to be an objection to Aquinas’ proof here. Am I right?

This doesn’t explain the appearance of intelligence in human and other species.

Right - I still don’t see why it has to. The proof begins with non-intelligent things that show final causality and moves from there to creating intelligence being that designs the regularities that appear throughout nature at all levels.

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.

Again, I don’t see how the appearance of human intelligence is an argument against this proof. The proof is based on final causality inherent in all things, including DNA, human cells, embryos, and even to human rationality and intelligence, which also shows evidence of final causality in that the final cause of human rationality appears to be truth itself. Human rationality does not self create this end within itself, even if we exclude the notion of an immaterial soul.

So again, I don’t see how this is in any way an argument against Aquinas’ fifth way.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

OK, I’m going to go back to your original post to see if I missed something:

Good.

Right, so somehow the existence of human intelligence seems to be an objection to Aquinas’ proof here. Am I right?

Not only that. The existence of human intelligence without any need for an external agent’s intervention is the main focus of my argument.

Right - I still don’t see why it has to. The proof begins with non-intelligent things that show final causality and moves from there to creating intelligence being that designs the regularities that appear throughout nature at all levels.

Just rewind the movie further and you will see. Let me ask you this question: how the final cause which appear as a regularities in levels nature can manifest itself into intelligence? 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. 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.

Again, I don’t see how the appearance of human intelligence is an argument against this proof. The proof is based on final causality inherent in all things, including DNA, human cells, embryos, and even to human rationality and intelligence, which also shows evidence of final causality in that the final cause of human rationality appears to be truth itself. Human rationality does not self create this end within itself, even if we exclude the notion of an immaterial soul.

Please read previous comment.

So again, I don’t see how this is in any way an argument against Aquinas’ fifth way.

God bless,
Ut

I hope I am clear by now but I am open to further discussion.