Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Strongest Argument for the Existence of God

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.

If you watch please feel free to give a response below.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 1:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

tl;dr? Or at least a link to his argument.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:09:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

tl;dr? Or at least a link to his argument.

Lol, watch the video?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:09:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:09:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

tl;dr? Or at least a link to his argument.

Lol, watch the video?

It's an hour long though
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 2:10:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 2:09:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/29/2015 2:09:16 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:23:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

tl;dr? Or at least a link to his argument.

Lol, watch the video?

It's an hour long though

It's easier to understand than Chris Langan though. ;)

Also, anything by Feser is going to be long. He's long-winded. But good.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 7:17:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

Before watching the vid, how about you give a general outline of what the argument is.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 9:56:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
His basic argument is that there is a first cause since any change requires a changer which in turn is changed so requires a changer etc. all the way back to some unchanged changer, or unmoved mover. He illustrates it with some everyday arguments about why coffee cools, why a cup stays up and does not fall and why water stays as water. This seems to me to be a very old argument.

Perhaps this has been mentioned before but doesn't the random nature of quantum physics suggest that some things happen without the need for an 'actualizer' and so the chain of changed needing changer is broken?
Raisor
Posts: 4,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2015 8:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 9:56:18 AM, chui wrote:
His basic argument is that there is a first cause since any change requires a changer which in turn is changed so requires a changer etc. all the way back to some unchanged changer, or unmoved mover. He illustrates it with some everyday arguments about why coffee cools, why a cup stays up and does not fall and why water stays as water. This seems to me to be a very old argument.

Perhaps this has been mentioned before but doesn't the random nature of quantum physics suggest that some things happen without the need for an 'actualizer' and so the chain of changed needing changer is broken?

This is not at all my area of expertise, but the language of causation used here just sounds so contrived and outdated.

Like "hierarchical" causality isn't a metaphysical feature of reality, its just a conceptual way of ordering causal relations. In the cup/house analogy, he wants to say at a given time there is this heirarchy of causal relations, but really there is a system of objects exerting forces on all the other objects in the system. Saying the earth is "holding up the cup" through all the other objects make sense as a way to order the world for the purpose of manipulating the world, but really the earth is also the reason the cup wants to fall down. But really the cup and the earth are both exerting gravitational forces on each other, and it is just a much the earth giving the table the power to hold up the cup as it is the cup giving the table the power to keep the earth away.

It just seems absurd to me to say walls are serving as the earth's instruments in holding up a cup. A table doesnt receive some ability to perform a task from the earth, it just stands in a particular causal relation to all the other objects in the universe. We then impose a causal narrative on the table to help us manipulate those causal relations.

I think it's just a linguistic trick to pretend we have uncovered a form of causality that allows us to trace "Derivative" properties through a causal heirarchy.

Idk I haven't thought all that much about Aristotle/Thomist metaphysics in a long long time.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 5:49:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 8:10:25 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2015 9:56:18 AM, chui wrote:
His basic argument is that there is a first cause since any change requires a changer which in turn is changed so requires a changer etc. all the way back to some unchanged changer, or unmoved mover. He illustrates it with some everyday arguments about why coffee cools, why a cup stays up and does not fall and why water stays as water. This seems to me to be a very old argument.

Perhaps this has been mentioned before but doesn't the random nature of quantum physics suggest that some things happen without the need for an 'actualizer' and so the chain of changed needing changer is broken?

This is not at all my area of expertise, but the language of causation used here just sounds so contrived and outdated.

Like "hierarchical" causality isn't a metaphysical feature of reality, its just a conceptual way of ordering causal relations. In the cup/house analogy, he wants to say at a given time there is this heirarchy of causal relations, but really there is a system of objects exerting forces on all the other objects in the system. Saying the earth is "holding up the cup" through all the other objects make sense as a way to order the world for the purpose of manipulating the world, but really the earth is also the reason the cup wants to fall down. But really the cup and the earth are both exerting gravitational forces on each other, and it is just a much the earth giving the table the power to hold up the cup as it is the cup giving the table the power to keep the earth away.

It just seems absurd to me to say walls are serving as the earth's instruments in holding up a cup. A table doesnt receive some ability to perform a task from the earth, it just stands in a particular causal relation to all the other objects in the universe. We then impose a causal narrative on the table to help us manipulate those causal relations.

I think it's just a linguistic trick to pretend we have uncovered a form of causality that allows us to trace "Derivative" properties through a causal heirarchy.

Idk I haven't thought all that much about Aristotle/Thomist metaphysics in a long long time.

- Like you said, not your area of expertise.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 6:25:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 8:10:25 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 3/30/2015 9:56:18 AM, chui wrote:
His basic argument is that there is a first cause since any change requires a changer which in turn is changed so requires a changer etc. all the way back to some unchanged changer, or unmoved mover. He illustrates it with some everyday arguments about why coffee cools, why a cup stays up and does not fall and why water stays as water. This seems to me to be a very old argument.

Perhaps this has been mentioned before but doesn't the random nature of quantum physics suggest that some things happen without the need for an 'actualizer' and so the chain of changed needing changer is broken?

This is not at all my area of expertise, but the language of causation used here just sounds so contrived and outdated.

Agreed, in fact while watching as much of the video as I could take I found myself questioning why this guy is considered some sort of expert. He appears to be relaying rather a trivial argument.

Like "hierarchical" causality isn't a metaphysical feature of reality, its just a conceptual way of ordering causal relations. In the cup/house analogy, he wants to say at a given time there is this heirarchy of causal relations, but really there is a system of objects exerting forces on all the other objects in the system. Saying the earth is "holding up the cup" through all the other objects make sense as a way to order the world for the purpose of manipulating the world, but really the earth is also the reason the cup wants to fall down. But really the cup and the earth are both exerting gravitational forces on each other, and it is just a much the earth giving the table the power to hold up the cup as it is the cup giving the table the power to keep the earth away.

Yes from a scientific point of view his argument did seem very naive.

It just seems absurd to me to say walls are serving as the earth's instruments in holding up a cup. A table doesnt receive some ability to perform a task from the earth, it just stands in a particular causal relation to all the other objects in the universe. We then impose a causal narrative on the table to help us manipulate those causal relations.

I think it's just a linguistic trick to pretend we have uncovered a form of causality that allows us to trace "Derivative" properties through a causal heirarchy.


Idk I haven't thought all that much about Aristotle/Thomist metaphysics in a long long time.

Even if his argument is sound it really does not tell us anything about the nature of the 'unmoved mover'. Labeling the 'unmoved mover' as God seems a huge leap. I have never really understood why people wish to prove the existence of god surely it should be about faith if you are a theist?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 10:03:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

Why does the unmoved mover entail teleological causation based on this argument?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2015 10:04:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:03:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

Why does the unmoved mover entail teleological causation based on this argument?

I don't even know what the argument is lol
Can you briefly describe it?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 12:49:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

"It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating."

~ Aristotle
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 12:51:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 10:04:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 10:03:03 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

Why does the unmoved mover entail teleological causation based on this argument?

I don't even know what the argument is lol
Can you briefly describe it?

The prime mover argument is just like this:

Present state (caused by) --> past state 1 --> past state 2 --> past state 3 [...] --> past state 1,000,000, etc. Either this process goes on forever (which the proponents of this argument would call illogical) or you reach an uncaused cause, or, in other words, the prime mover, which is God.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 1:29:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/30/2015 8:11:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/29/2015 11:44:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
An hour long? I'll stay atheist, thank you very much.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 7:14:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:35:44 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Dr. Edward Feser uses Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy to conclude that God exists in a strong and original way. Definitely worth the watch for anyone that is even slightly interested in Aristotelian-Thomism philosophy or the existence of God.



If you watch please feel free to give a response below.

I think that most instances where one is using philosophy to conclude something about reality, they're making a mistake. Philosophy is not how we come to conclusions about the real world.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 12:17:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 12:49:32 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

"It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating."

~ Aristotle

For Aristotle, teleological causation could simply mean, for example, that a seed is directed toward becoming a tree. That is not what I'm talking about, since that kind of causation is reducible to arbitrary, physical processes. The question I'm asking is: can the teleology of the universe as a whole be attributed to unconscious entities.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2015 1:31:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 1:29:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/30/2015 8:11:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/29/2015 11:44:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
An hour long? I'll stay atheist, thank you very much.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein

Actually, the longer something is, the less complex it needs to be.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 12:18:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Because it's mathematically impossible for the unmoved mover to be anything but conscious. This is an argument I came up with. It's hard to understand but this is the best way I can explain it.

1. All potential outcomes that randomly occur first had an innate probability of occurring.
2. All outcomes with an innate probability above 0 will definitely occur given an infinite amount of time.
3. Once that inevitable outcome is reached, it has a quantifiable beginning by counting backwards for each trial that led up to that outcome.
4. If something has a quantifiable beginning it cannot be infinite.
5. If something is uncaused it must be infinite.
6. The uncaused cause could not have caused all other outcomes randomly.
pj43176
Posts: 306
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:09:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science itself recognizes that each event has a cause, and therefore, any phenomenon we understand, as well as those we don't, cannot just exist in themselves. But of course if we assume that a divine being is the uncaused cause, most atheists will ask, where did that uncaused cause come from?

Modern quantum physicists as well as astrophysicists, have used mathematics to prove there is some kind of way that matter just (spontaneously arose)--but then believers say, "arose from what?" on and on, the chicken creates the egg and the egg creates the chicken--or is it the other way around? Well, all of it's probably meaningless since a being of pure spirit, (which is what many people say God is), cannot be known rationally or logically. So,how can material evidence used to prove the existence of a non-material being or power? And many scientist would counter, saying that, postulating a non material being or an all power one, by using material observations as evidence, is equally as faulty.

To me the whole issue revolves around faith, and whatever I believe or don't, requires intuition and faith to accept. One has just got to say, "I believe in an uncaused cause, because that just seems to make spiritual sense." And scientists must admit that by denying the existence of an uncaused cause, they are saying that nothing really has any beginning, or even any end---because even if the universe vanished, no eyes would be left to verify its end.

When it comes to other aspects of faith, such as how long it took the earth to form, or whose religion is the one true one, or what human values are cross cultural, there is nothing in the physical universe, (beyond our own assumptions and biases), that can verify such subjective beliefs or prove the objective existence of a God i.e. if it took 7 days for Earth's creation we can only rely on our own beliefs to verify that physically unproven assumption, and if there is an uncaused cause, that cause cannot be proven outside of own personal subjective beliefs, since such a being, or power, cannot be rationally affirmed. Philosophy based on teleological observations can only be accepted after first agreeing that such observations actually prove the existence of a source that has created everything?--but someone else may see beauty and order, and say, these are just the way things are, and does not prove why or how they are that way?

Ultimately, If one believe in Jesus or Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, etc. etc, all one can do is accept the things they taught based on faith, and how those things resonate with our human experience. Likewise science will need to accept that either they are wrong about cause and effects, or at least, that, knowledge about the physical Universe cannot be used to disprove religious beliefs, (since God, Nirvana, the Atman,
Heaven, etc.), are not really considered material, or necessarily the products of rationality in the first place!

To me the vastness of the Universe, Chemistry, physics, the DNA molecule and the process of natural selection themselves, are all, completely awesome , and suggest that a higher being is behind all that we perceive. But I have to maintain the humility to know that I cannot prove that belief logically, and must admit it is based on faith alone.

And why should I or anyone else need to prove that God exists in the first place? If we have faith in teachings of a divine being, that's only because the love, truth, and wisdom inherent in what they teach, has touched our hearts and emotions. It can only be experienced as resonating within ourselves, or not.

Each word creates new words to be defined, and each proof is then disproved, and then proved again---but ultimately, having faith in Jesus or Buddha for example, depends primarily on our subjective feelings, and the willingness we have to rely on intuition and faith---not knowledge that can be proven with logic .

As far as science goes--we live in a physical universe that provides provable knowledge about how the world and the universe work. And, I see no reason to doubt, for example, that the massive fossil evidence we have cataloged, does not prove Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution.

spiritually, how any person shows love, or how awed and inspired many scientists are when discovering something previously unknown---to me, are indeed spiritually important factors. Although I may believe in the resurrection, even if I have no objective proof for such a belief--should it matter to me if I can't find any? If I hang the whole thing on which name to worship, then I might as well praise Ralph, or Sebastian, instead--and If I personally find such specific names arbitrarily superior , this only cheapens anything I might say, as well as it would for any number of "true believers."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 7:24:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 12:17:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2015 12:49:32 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

"It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating."

~ Aristotle

For Aristotle, teleological causation could simply mean, for example, that a seed is directed toward becoming a tree. That is not what I'm talking about, since that kind of causation is reducible to arbitrary, physical processes.
You literally just said what Aristotle meant when he talked about teleology but then you say that you're talking about a "different kind" of teleology. You need to define your terms - why is the Aristotelian definition insufficient? You're equivocating.

The question I'm asking is: can the teleology of the universe as a whole be attributed to unconscious entities.
Again, you're saying that you want to talk about teleology but you arbitrarily reject Aristotle who basically formulated the most well-known descriptions of teleology there are, lol. If you're going to do that, at least offer a substitute definition so we know what you're talking about.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 1:20:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 7:24:55 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/2/2015 12:17:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/2/2015 12:49:32 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 4/1/2015 9:20:24 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Are non-sentient entities capable of teleological causation?

"It is absurd to suppose that ends are not present [in nature] because we do not see an agent deliberating."

~ Aristotle

For Aristotle, teleological causation could simply mean, for example, that a seed is directed toward becoming a tree. That is not what I'm talking about, since that kind of causation is reducible to arbitrary, physical processes.
You literally just said what Aristotle meant when he talked about teleology but then you say that you're talking about a "different kind" of teleology. You need to define your terms - why is the Aristotelian definition insufficient? You're equivocating.

My point is that the "purpose" of a seed, for instance, is not actually a real feature of the universe. He's attaching purpose to blind, physical processes. In other words, he's projecting his consciously generated notion of purpose onto the seed. Who's to say that the purpose of the seed is not something completely different? "Purpose", as he's using it, is arbitrary. It only becomes a real phenomenon when the purpose is shown to be a manifestation of the purpose of the universe as a whole. That's ultimately what it takes for "purpose" to be an objective feature of the universe.


The question I'm asking is: can the teleology of the universe as a whole be attributed to unconscious entities.
Again, you're saying that you want to talk about teleology but you arbitrarily reject Aristotle who basically formulated the most well-known descriptions of teleology there are, lol. If you're going to do that, at least offer a substitute definition so we know what you're talking about.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:17:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/2/2015 1:29:22 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 3/30/2015 8:11:46 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 3/29/2015 11:44:58 PM, Maikuru wrote:
An hour long? I'll stay atheist, thank you very much.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." -Albert Einstein

It is explained very simply.
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:18:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

He explains this in the video. Although I think the main point is establishing that God exists, and then the other stuff can be filled in later.
Nolite Timere
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 2:45:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 12:18:31 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/1/2015 8:52:13 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
As one poster said, even if we grant an unmoved mover... So what? Why assume this is a conscious being instead of a non-sentient force of some kind?

Because it's mathematically impossible for the unmoved mover to be anything but conscious. This is an argument I came up with. It's hard to understand but this is the best way I can explain it.

1. All potential outcomes that randomly occur first had an innate probability of occurring.
2. All outcomes with an innate probability above 0 will definitely occur given an infinite amount of time.
3. Once that inevitable outcome is reached, it has a quantifiable beginning by counting backwards for each trial that led up to that outcome.
4. If something has a quantifiable beginning it cannot be infinite.
5. If something is uncaused it must be infinite.
6. The uncaused cause could not have caused all other outcomes randomly.

Your logic refutes itself. 2 requires infinite time yet in 3 you say it's impossible because an infinite would have a quantifiable beginning and is not infinite. With this there can be no infinite amount of time thus not all random outcomes can exist. Also 3 implies that all event must happen in a sequence that's traced into a regress, all outcomes could easily be expressed simultaneously.

5, your usual MO of shoehorning God in w/o backing it up. Why must the uncaused be infinite, furthermore if it is infinite would not an infinite being imply infinite time and thus all random outcomes just as I describe above?