Aquinas's Fifth Way

[Alex K]

1: Things (composites of material and form) remain as they are and do not change unless an external influence or power within themselves acts, i.e. a cause or reason.

Probably wrong because quantum. The End.

[Brian37]

Aquinas had no modern knowledge of science. Nothing in those quotes demonstrates anything scientific.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You can always ask why [nature is regular]. And you can only answer by either appealing to science or theology. Give me one good reason why anyone should ever even consider the latter as anything but speculation based on mere assumption.

Natural science already takes causality as a given. The problem lies at a higher level of inquiry, mainly metaphysical (or as you say theological). Speculations and assumptions are not grounded by reason, which is the main tool of philosophy.

But there is an explanation [for natures regularity]; the cause is not changing…so there is no mechanism evident that would cause the effect to change.

So, why don’t causes produce inconsistent results?

You're either positing the existence of an effect (that changes the effect of another effect) without a cause, or you're positing a cause that we're unable to apprehend, creating the same effect.

I say that there is a base cause that that can be apprehended by means of reason, something fundamental that directs causes to their effects. Without such a fundamental cause, there will be (as you point correctly point out, like Hume before you) an infinite recess within the causal chain.

Your very first premise is that things do not change without some extant force acting upon them,… either…you're positing an effect without a cause which violates your first premise

The first premise acknowledges that some substances, like plants and animals, do have within themselves the power to change. This objection does not apply.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it taken as a given or is it an observation? You seem to think that it's an observation when you make an argument for god...but call it a given when science is concerned? What's up with that? I'm afraid that you're still being far too ambiguous in your questions for any answer to be attempted (and certainly too ambiguous for any answer to be satisfying). Point to a specific cause that produces a consistent result and perhaps someone could explain why that is, to you, and why it could not be otherwise?

Do plants possess intelligence? If we concede that they have within them the power to change (and I doubt that we could call that effect anything -but- consistent) and yet do not grant them intelligence the rest is just destroyed - all in one stroke. If we grant them intelligence to salvage the argument, then whatever intelligence may be required to direct things, code for god - seems very...very marginal.

[FifthElement]

Without such a fundamental cause, there will be (as you point correctly point out, like Hume before you) an infinite recess within the causal chain.

You still did not show how is infinite causality chain impossible..

Been waiting for some time now

[Neo-Scholastic]

You still did not show how is infinite causality chain impossible..

At the Planck scale the regress stops.

---

Is it taken as a given or is it an observation? You seem to think that it's an observation when you make an argument for god...but call it a given when science is concerned

Scientific inquiries are about what the types of knowledge follow from that observation. Asking why the observation holds is a philosophical inquiry about what precedes the observation.

Point to a specific cause that produces a consistent result and perhaps someone could explain why that is, to you, and why it could not be otherwise?

Do plants possess intelligence?...then whatever intelligence may be required to direct things.. seems…marginal.

Yes, plants have a kind of have a kind of intelligence derived from their nature as hylomorphic substance (a compound of essence and existience). The nature of a supreme or overarching intelligent is reserved for subsequent arguments. For now it is only necessary to acknowledge a fundamental intentionality responsible for making reality intelligible.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scientific inquiries are about what the types of knowledge follow from that observation. Asking why the observation holds is a philosophical inquiry about what precedes the observation.

-and yet science seems to be able to make observations about causality..and even when causality doesn't seem to hold as we might expect, and even -why- causality holds when we do. I'm afraid you're not going to be able to claim this ground so easily. It's an observation, and it's part of the larger collection of observations that we call science - up to and including, in any specific case...-why- we observe it and -why- it holds.

Yes, plants have a kind of have a kind of intelligence derived from their nature as hylomorphic substance (a compound of essence and existience). The nature of a supreme or overarching intelligent is reserved for subsequent arguments. For now it is only necessary to acknowledge a fundamental intentionality responsible for making reality intelligible.

Am I to assume that you are comfortable using the effects ancillary to and parcel to plants as an example of a specific cause? What with the doubling of quote tags and your response?

I like that you're willing to give plants the nod (though this "essence" business smells like fabrication from the outset..and I'll get to the hylomorphic bit in a moment). That said- if they do possess intelligence, it isn't intelligence that causes them to track the sun. Auxin is photophobic, it breaks down in the presence of sunlight, and it's a growth hormone that collects and causes tissue to to build up on the dark side of a plant. The effect of this is that a plant grows "toward" the light - because it's essentially building a light negative structure on the opposite side. No intelligence is required (even if plants possess it) because it's just machinery. Auxin can't behave any other way, and subsequently the effect we see in the stem of a plant is regular. If you'd like to discuss why auxin is photophobic we can have that discussion as well - we won't find any intelligence in it. As another poster has pointed out, it's chemistry.

Similarly, in the case of diurnal phototropism light sensitive cells cause a motor assembly to fire releasing potassium ions into nearby tissue which increases the pressure in the area of the plant associated. Makes it stand up, as it were. Again, chemistry. They fire whenever light hits them, they can't do anything else, and the result is thusly regular.

Here we have one cause (light) for two regular effects, and nothing in the intermediate situation requires any sort of intelligence whatsoever. So while we might say "they have intelligence" it doesn't seem to be required for the effects we observe - the change- to either occur, or occur with regularity. Maybe they wonder how all of this machinery works themselves, as they laze in the sun - but I doubt it.

Now on to this "hylomorphic" bit. Good luck separating a plants body from it's "soul". Every effect that we perceive and associate with life in a plant is firmly mechanical, and firmly a property of it's body- so whatever a soul might do in a plant, it doesn't seem to be doing anything that we can observe - just like it's intelligence.

As I said, this intelligence bit doesn't seem to be required, and if it's present it definitely doesn't seem to be anything impressive. If all of this can be achieved without intelligence.....by a thing that possesses an intelligence so marginal that it's non-existence and existence are entirely impossible to distinguish.....makes one wonder what sort of god we might be arguing for based upon observations of intelligence in cause, and the regularity of effects. None of this would have been available to Aristotle (for example)...so I can't blame him - but it is available to you....and of course the supposition that there is no bodily organ to think probably also sent him in the wrong direction...but ultimately, even though there demonstrably -is- a bodily organ to think..it doesn't seem to be required for effects similar to those associated with organisms that -do- have an organ to think. In other words...there is demonstrably no such necessity of intelligence as the one you have been invoking..even if it may be present.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Rythym, nothing you said conflicts with my position. Substances have dispositions based on their underlying structure. You're reference to auxin pushes the issue down a level. In plants, and their constituent parts, we see a limited expression of something already present at a the most fundamental level.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, it pushes it down a level - because there's just no intelligence required for that change to occur, or for that effect to be regular. My explanation conflicts with your position in every conceivable way (I should know, I took care to take issue with every claim you made...even your choice of words). Want to talk auxin now, or can we skip all of the foreplay and get straight to a gaps argument - like a posted a few pages back?

[Esquilax]

But there is an explanation [for natures regularity]; the cause is not changing…so there is no mechanism evident that would cause the effect to change.

So, why don’t causes produce inconsistent results?

What, you're just going to repeat the question while quoting my answer? There is no mechanism present for causes to produce inconsistent results, so there is no reason why a cause would produce a distinct, separate effect each time. Every observation we have ever made confirms this to be true; you're not going to be able to ignore that by just asserting that regularity is an assumption. It's not: it is an observed, readily confirmable feature of the real world, one that you are asserting is only due to some extra, supernatural layer making it so.

No amount of attempts to shift the burden of proof is going to change that. You are the one making the claim requiring demonstration here, and in fact the "problem" you see only exists if you assume your conclusion from the outset. Without presupposing that the only reason cause and effect works the way it does is magic, your question becomes nonsensical. You haven't even attempted to demonstrate that the natural state of things is total, random chaos even where the laws of physics work, you haven't demonstrated that it all requires an outside agent to keep things consistent, and you seem to have no interest at all in demonstrating that this agent necessarily be supernatural in nature.

Your position relies on a whole lot of unjustified assumptions, and I for one am not going to jump through any of your hoops merely because you keep asking the same questions over and over.

I say that there is a base cause that that can be apprehended by means of reason, something fundamental that directs causes to their effects. Without such a fundamental cause, there will be (as you point correctly point out, like Hume before you) an infinite recess within the causal chain.

Now that you've asserted the necessity of a base cause, do you care to demonstrate both that necessity, and the existence of, that cause? Because that's where you need to be going from here before you have anything approaching a point. Just the first part would require me to find a base cause too, of course, but we aren't even there yet. One step at a time.

The first premise acknowledges that some substances, like plants and animals, do have within themselves the power to change. This objection does not apply.

It applies, because for one, you're still talking about causes and effects, just now you're including cases where those causes are internally driven (by outside causes too, let's not forget. Plants and animals cannot cause any effects without drawing in energy from outside.)