Aquinas's Fifth Way

[Neo-Scholastic]

There's no need to require a designer or outside controller of events for effects to be regular. It is natural that the same action produces the same results consistently. It is a result of the natural properties of the objects involved. Change the properties, change the results. But regardless, the results will be regular.

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation. That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

We observe that cause A causes effect B, assuming that there isn't anything else to interfere with it. Aquinas' argument, that the only reason this is so is because of an intelligent agent directing it begs the question by not offering any justification for assuming that things would be otherwise without that interference...There's a burden of proof here that's not even being attempted.

My answer to you depends upon whether or not you deny that causes are conceptually linked with their effects by necessity?

[The Grand Nudger]

They are brute facts, but that didn't negate any desire for an explanation, very often these explanations have been sought out - and with regularity they are found. "The regularities of nature" is a weasel phrase to begin with - what regularities, particularly? Is there something that you think is inexplicable, some place you'd like to cram a god? I can tell you, for example, why a plant tracks the sun with regularity. I'm guessing we'll just a reach a point where my explanations are exhausted - the explanations of others are exhausted, and then we'll see some "AHA! God"...this is also, of course, a regularity of nature requiring no intelligence.

[Minimalist]

By many historians it's considered the stupidest in human history.

Kind of like Mississippi, today.

[Angrboda]

There's no need to require a designer or outside controller of events for effects to be regular. It is natural that the same action produces the same results consistently. It is a result of the natural properties of the objects involved. Change the properties, change the results. But regardless, the results will be regular.

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation. That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

Two thoughts occur to me. First, I can't help but wonder if Aquinas would have made the same argument if he'd lived to see all of nature's behavior unified under two sets of equations. There is a certain simplicity and elegance to the natural order that I can only imagine was largely mysterious to an astute observer in his day. The second is that this is missing a lot of cogency because it is lacking the backdrop of Aristotle and Plato and the theory of forms and causes. Stated bluntly in modern terms without those nuances, some of the premises seem pure non sequiturs. As to the theory of forms and causes, my inclination is that the heirarchy of causes in some sense takes induction where it never should have gone; not everything forms a series, especially when you begin by jumping pell mell from one category to another. (I realize the initial arguments are somewhat more nuanced, but that's how it strikes me. Not everything has a more basic foundation somewhere further onward.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation. That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

...a lot of cogency because it is lacking the backdrop of Aristotle and Plato and the theory of forms and causes. Stated bluntly in modern terms without those nuances, some of the premises seem pure non sequiturs.

Hence my trepidation. You are correct that Aquinas's philosophy builds on the foundation of the other two. I see a lot of value in both the neo-Scholastic and analytic approaches to philosophy and cannot help trying to reconcile the two. The language is very different and yet some of the concepts seem closely related.

[Esquilax]

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation.

But there is an explanation; the cause is not changing, and so there is no mechanism evident that would cause the effect to change. 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. Your very first premise is that things do not change without some extant force acting upon them, and while effects follow causes they are also discrete entities in their own right regardless of that relationship; for them to change, wouldn't something need to be working on them to accomplish that?

Either way, the burden of proof is on you for making that positive claim. You're not going to be able to shift it by saying that we're unable to rule it out.

That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

Well, for one, all of the evidence at hand enforces the regularity of nature. For another, the premises of your own argument deny the possibility that it could be otherwise; if you continue to argue down this path then either you are wrong, in that you're positing an effect without a cause which violates your first premise, or your premises are wrong, in that you've apparently found an effect that can exist without a cause, in which case the entire argument as it has lost the basis by which you reach your conclusion.

The first is plenty sufficient. The second should just give you pause for thought.

My answer to you depends upon whether or not you deny that causes are conceptually linked with their effects by necessity?

Hmm, by necessity? Yes, in terms of reality, no in terms of discussion, since though effects obviously require causes, I don't want to set up a scenario in which I can't examine each thing individually if need be.

[Surgenator]

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.

Disagree. Nuclear decays have no external forces on them that forces them to decay.

2: The regularity of efficient causation requires that causes be determined to particular effects; such that, when, in the absence of a countervailing influence, cause C is directed to effect E, then C tends to have E as a result.

3: An efficient cause is an actualizing event that tends toward a specific end, that is to say, cause C attains effect E by means of intentionality.

"Intentionality" is the wrong word to use here. Intentionality suggest forethought which is not always the case. For example, a faulty wire does not think "i'll burn the house down" before it causes it.

4: Intentionality is characteristic of intelligent agency.

5: Unthinking causes do not have within themselves the power to intend toward regular effects.

Please define regular effects.

6: Therefore, some intelligent agent directs unthinking causes toward their effects.

I think that’s pretty good modern summary, but I’m open to suggestions.

Your premice 3, is the conclusion you reach in 6, because you demand that causes have forethought.

[JuliaL]

We observe regularity in the universe.
There is a positive claim that an intelligence directs it.
There is a positive claim that an intelligence does not direct it.
I choose a third option of choosing to withhold judgement with a heavy lean towards the second claim, of no directing intelligence. None is positively in evidence, (e.g. talking to me) and the many descriptions of uniformity, none of which require the mentioned intelligence, explain and predict reality in satisfactory detail. The proponents of the first claim have not been successful in making such detailed predictions.

[Minimalist]

Gravity causes a landslide which destroys your neighbor's house but misses yours.

Do you pray to it and thank it for missing you?

Or do you do something useful like grabbing a shovel and going to look for your neighbor?

[Mudhammam]

It’s fairly common to assert that the regularities of nature are brute facts that requires no further explanation. That said, can you think of a reason why it must be a brute fact other than you cannot give an account for the natural order. In other words, why is your assertion that the regularity of nature not an argument from ignorance.

You can always ask why. 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.