Becoming an angry atheist

[Mudhammam]

Aquinas does not use the fifth way to explain high order levels of order, i.e. apparent design. The 5th way grounds Aristotelian final causes, at all levels of reality, in intelligent agency. Complex intentionality is possible at the higher degrees of reality precisely because it is already present more fundamentally. The common experience to be explained is why changes occur in particular ways and not in randomly.

When I read the argument I did not see it demonstrate this, but rather instead assumed it must be so.

Now, the regularity of nature is either a contingent or necessary fact. If it is necessary then no further explanation is required. If it is a contingent must be explained by that which is necessary or a series of contingencies that lead back to a necessity. Since knowledge based on induction is by its nature contingent, it is proper to seek that which makes our world intelligible.

We cannot know one way or another. Necessity and contingency ceases to have meaning at the point space, time, and matter can no longer be spoken of in an intelligible manner.

Anyone can see from common experience (induction) that reality holds together in an intelligible way. When people take this induced knowledge for granted they quickly fall into the absurdity trap of occasionalism when they try to defend it. Even most occasionalists still tacitly believe that something holds causality together, even if they think that something itself remains unintelligible. Those, like me, who believe the universe is actually intelligible, say that something necessary serves as the ground for the regularities of efficient cause. Either way, occationalist or otherwise, there must be something. All that remains is to give that something a name. Hmmm…

God typically entails more significance than a mere name.

[Whateverist]

Causes, efficient or not, don't work 'towards a goal'. Causes just happen.

So you're going to just assert that the regularity with which specific effects follow from specific causes happen for no reason at all, a brute fact that requires no justification for that belief. Of course past experience demostrates such regularities in nature, which is the fact to be explained. How do you explain it?

There is a little wiggle room between "for no reason at all" and "for no reason known to me". The latter may include "for no reason generally known to man as determined empirically".

How can you possibly reason to "therefore something completely unconnected to the best theories of science" on the basis that you (and we) -in your infinite wisdom- do not possess that reason. I'm not in the habit of working backwards from facts I don't know to be true to conclusions I'd like to assume are true. That doesn't really work.

[robvalue]

Optimus prime moved the prime mover. Who moved Optimus prime? Super optimus prime.

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hey, Chad, I think you missed this. Care to opine?

It helps my case. When someone asserts that causation’s regularity is a brute fact, he or she is violating the anthropic principle, by looking at contingent facts and calling them necessary ones.

Besides, no fine tuning argument has been presented, so the point is mute.

I think you mean "moot", firstly.

Secondly, as FNM points out above, you are assuming that there is intelligence behind natural order because what order we see created here on Earth is the product of human intelligence ... hence, anthropic fallacy.

Galaxies have order, but no intelligence seems to be required in order for them to form. Put enough stuff into a given area of space, and they will form.

Now, if you want to argue that the laws of physics themselves require an intelligence in order to operate, then I'd like to see your proposed mechanism for an immaterial being to affect material existence.

[robvalue]

...and ultra super megatron moved super megatron...

[Thumpalumpacus]

...and ultra super megatron moved super megatron...

The ultra-super-duper-end-of-all-movers-mover:

[robvalue]

If the prime mover doesn't need a mover because it's the prime mover, then the universe creator walrus created the universe because it's the universe creator walrus.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...you are assuming that there is intelligence behind natural order because what order we see created here on Earth is the product of human intelligence ... hence, anthropic fallacy.

Your critique assumes that something other than intelligence is ultimately responsible for natural order. Formal and final causes are just as involved in the creation of galaxies as everything else.

.Now, if you want to argue that the laws of physics themselves require an intelligence in order to operate, then I'd like to see your proposed mechanism for an immaterial being to affect material existence.

And here I'm the one accused of begging the question! You ask for a mechanism because you already assume a mechanistic universe devoid of formal and final causes.

[robvalue]

Guess I'm on block. I wonder what my score is now? How many points do I get per theist?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Guess I'm on block. I wonder what my score is now? How many points do I get per theist?

I haven't blocked you. You just haven't said anything worth responding to.