Thomas Aquinas Fifth Way : The argument from Design

Manny said:

I know other forms of life could be possible, but this argument is based on what we know for sure, not whatever else there could be.
What I said is taken from recent discussions in the scientific community. These are not my own words or ideas.

For example, in science we know that radiation destroys life by damaging molecular bonds. Neutron radiation will knock the protons out of the atoms in your body. Safe to assume nothing would survive on a planet close to a gamma ray burst.

Click to expand...

Since we don't know for sure that ours is the only possible form of life, then you can't argue from a position of "what we know for sure".

And yet there are people that survive neutron radiation. I've been subjected to neutron radiation to at least extent (at least thermalized neutrons). Still here.

Again, you cannot be sure that nothing could survive that, only that nothing like us could.

RAMOSS said:

The fifth way of Thomas Aquinas is the Argument from Design. It is as follows



Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this Ramoss as well as for all of the other 4 proofs of God by Aquinas as well. We all appreciate the work that you have gone to in ferreting these our and laying them out in everyday language.

The 5th proof of God by Aquinas is my all time favorite.

I came up with a version of it myself in Catholic high school in late 9th Grade (Freshman year).

However my own version was slightly different however close enough to endear me to Aquinas' #5 as well as all the other 4 in addition.

My version of #5 goes like this:

1 - life seems tough for everyone and especially tough for some

2 - life seems to be designed to test everyone

3 - since life appears to be designed, there must be a designer and this designer is God.

4 - since the test is hard then the designer must need or want to know how we will act under given circumstances

5 - since the designed test is refining us then there must be a reward or a punishment awaiting us after life

6 - since the designed test seems to be in preparation for an afterlife then there must be an afterlife

7 - since God is testing us then the reward must be to live eternally with God

8 - for those who fail the test there must be another place for the condemned

9 - since this testing is a huge task involving billions of souls then God must have helpers

10 - God's helpers must be angels and arch angels of Heaven

11 - working for God as an angel or arch angel is the reward in the afterlife and the purpose of this life.

12 - the 7 arch angels of God therefore must also exist because God cannot do all this work alone.

13 - man should keep all the laws of God during this life in order to fare well on the test

14 - man must strive to learn the laws of God in order to keep them

15 - there is merit in teaching others the laws of God once you have discovered them yourself.

16 - in addition to keeping all the laws of God it is merit that excels us to the Kingdom and Presence of God.

roguenuke said:

Since we don't know for sure that ours is the only possible form of life, then you can't argue from a position of "what we know for sure".

And yet there are people that survive neutron radiation. I've been subjected to neutron radiation to at least extent (at least thermalized neutrons). Still here.

Again, you cannot be sure that nothing could survive that, only that nothing like us could.

Click to expand...

There is natural radiation on earth all around us. Neutrons are not so common but their effects on the human body are well known. We experience radiation from earth and from space every day and we are still here. Gamma ray bursts are the most energetic beams of radiation observed in the universe, their level of energy momentarily exceeds the average output of a whole galaxy. So the energy is mind bogglingly high. Furthermore the mechanism that brings death is physical, as in physical kinetic damage at the molecular level. There is no pill that can prevent this, it's physics.

We cannot be sure that other alien forms exist, maybe crystalline life which has high radiation immunity.
I have tried to confine my statements to the reality that we know right now, based on the best of our scientific knowledge. This is what scientists are telling us today.

RAMOSS said:

Uh. Not really. That is not what science 'discovered' at all. Evidence Emerges That Laws of Physics Are Not Fine-Tuned For Life | MIT Technology Review

Click to expand...

Come on Ramoss, you expect me to fall for that flashy headline? It's one guys opinion.

Or did they build the LHC by mistake, because they never read the reductio ad absurdum by Don Page.

Who can say if the maximum production of life is preferable over a more conservative one. Systems with feedback do not run at 100%.

Manny said:

I know other forms of life could be possible, but this argument is based on what we know for sure, not whatever else there could be.

Click to expand...

The difference between you and me: you're taking observations of zero percent of the universe and declaring we're the most complex thing that exists. I'm taking observations of zero percent of the universe and declaring that we don't know enough to do anything more than a blind, stupid, wild ass guess at something like that.

roguenuke said:

Since we don't know for sure that ours is the only possible form of life, then you can't argue from a position of "what we know for sure".

And yet there are people that survive neutron radiation. I've been subjected to neutron radiation to at least extent (at least thermalized neutrons). Still here.

Again, you cannot be sure that nothing could survive that, only that nothing like us could.

Click to expand...

Gamma ray bursts are of a sufficient magnitude that it's pretty reasonable to say nothing could survive it at a short distance. (well, short in a galactic scale anyway)

But what percentage of the galaxy is subject to that regularly? Not a lot.

Manny said:

Come on Ramoss, you expect me to fall for that flashy headline? It's one guys opinion.

Click to expand...

Says the guy posting a bunch of opinions.

Manny said:

There is natural radiation on earth all around us. Neutrons are not so common but their effects on the human body are well known. We experience radiation from earth and from space every day and we are still here. Gamma ray bursts are the most energetic beams of radiation observed in the universe, their level of energy momentarily exceeds the average output of a whole galaxy. So the energy is mind bogglingly high. Furthermore the mechanism that brings death is physical, as in physical kinetic damage at the molecular level. There is no pill that can prevent this, it's physics.

We cannot be sure that other alien forms exist, maybe crystalline life which has high radiation immunity.
I have tried to confine my statements to the reality that we know right now, based on the best of our scientific knowledge. This is what scientists are telling us today.

Click to expand...

And that still is just what we know, which would not exclude other life forms nor would it even exclude our own lifeforms developing a way to minimize or become immune to radiation in some way.

roguenuke said:

And that still is just what we know, which would not exclude other life forms nor would it even exclude our own lifeforms developing a way to minimize or become immune to radiation in some way.

Click to expand...

It would have to evolve first, coming from promordial life that is more fragile in nature. I'm saying, there is a maximum energy below which this can happen.

Deuce said:

Says the guy posting a bunch of opinions.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I admit they are. You know that already, so now you're just being a provocative little dick.
The way Ramoss posted it, the flashy link made it sound like the issue is resolved.

Deuce said:

The difference between you and me: you're taking observations of zero percent of the universe and declaring we're the most complex thing that exists. I'm taking observations of zero percent of the universe and declaring that we don't know enough to do anything more than a blind, stupid, wild ass guess at something like that.

Click to expand...

Based on the above statement, it sounds like you are the one who is guessing while I am sticking to the facts.

Manny said:

Based on the above statement, it sounds like you are the one who is guessing while I am sticking to the facts.

Click to expand...

Manny try this:

User control panel / Edit ignore list / Enter name / Click OK. Works for me.

There are 3 kinds of people in this world --

1 - those on my friend list

2 - those on my ignore list

3 - the other unexamined lives.

Riveroaks said:

Manny try this:

User control panel / Edit ignore list / Enter name / Click OK. Works for me.

There are 3 kinds of people in this world --

1 - those on my friend list

2 - those on my ignore list

3 - the other unexamined lives.

Click to expand...

lol No, I wouldn't do that. He's a human being, he should not be ignored!
I figure if I am patient, perhaps I can help the poor fellow...

Manny said:

Based on the above statement, it sounds like you are the one who is guessing while I am sticking to the facts.

Click to expand...

You are sticking to facts. "We are the most complex thing in the universe" isn't a fact, it's an opinion. And it's an opinion extremely likely to be wrong.

You just whined that you admit to posting opinions, and now you claim to be sticking to the facts. Make up your mind.

Manny said:

It would have to evolve first, coming from promordial life that is more fragile in nature. I'm saying, there is a maximum energy below which this can happen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps such life has already evolved and we simply haven't encountered it. We have seen very, very little of the universe.

Manny said:

Yes, and I admit they are. You know that already, so now you're just being a provocative little dick.
The way Ramoss posted it, the flashy link made it sound like the issue is resolved.

Click to expand...

That's all that guy is here for....

OrphanSlug said:

The biggest criticism you will find of Thomas Aquinas is the presumption of truth.

If you agree that the function of philosophy is asking the right question of what others consider truth as a means to obtain new understandings, then Thomas Aquinas already does not qualify as a philosopher. The core idea of following a train of thought to a conclusion using this discipline is not really knowing in advance what that direction may be. Therefor it becomes easy to illustrate that all Aquinas is doing is applying mental exercise to truths he already holds as prerequisites to that train of thought. Because of his declared and inherent arguments for his faith, Catholicism, then it becomes difficult to accept his conclusions.

It is the difference between evaluating someone else's truth, and using a similar exercise to validate a truth you already profess. And that becomes Aquinas' ultimate weakness of these arguments, the assumption of these last steps that happen to match his preexisting leans of truth. So the argument is not convincing, as it no longer is about a process of academia but rather a sister process to some system of belief. Very strong for those that agree with that system of belief, not so strong for those looking to what a system of process (academia, in this case Philosophy) is designed to yield.

This is a perfect example of Theology getting in the way of Philosophy, and the ironic part is they do not have to be adversarial schools of thought on all occasions. They can be quite complementary assuming the course of Philosophy is allowed to find its more natural conclusion based on the question asked, instead of guidance to a predetermined conclusion that tenets of Theocracy demands.

I hope this helps... (sincerely.)

Click to expand...

I don't see you critiquing the argument.... but just Aquinas himself, that is not what a Philosopher does...

The other posts not agreeing with the premise is a more valid response

celticwar17 said:

I don't see you critiquing the argument.... but just Aquinas himself, that is not what a Philosopher does...

The other posts not agreeing with the premise is a more valid response

Click to expand...

Yet, you ignored post #5 which does.

Ahem. If I might ask. Could someone tell me how we distinguish 'designed' from 'not-designed' perhaps, giving a measure for 'designedness'?

Quag said:

1.We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
He is assuming that natural bodies are working towards a goal and it is not just happening by chance.
The whole argument fails on the first point

Click to expand...

Ironically, the 'goal' tends to be a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy of '3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.'. Drawing a target around where something has been directed by chance and declaring that was the goal.

Manny said:

Come on Ramoss, you expect me to fall for that flashy headline? It's one guys opinion.

Or did they build the LHC by mistake, because they never read the reductio ad absurdum by Don Page.

Who can say if the maximum production of life is preferable over a more conservative one. Systems with feedback do not run at 100%.

Click to expand...

Since you brought up Don Page, do you know what his opinion is of 'fine tuning'. Let's look at what he specificially said.

From Guest Post: Don Page on God and Cosmology | Sean Carroll

In summary, I think the evidence from fine tuning is ambiguous, since the probabilities depend on the models. Whether or not the universe had a beginning also is ambiguous, and furthermore I don’t see that it has any relevance to the question of whether or not God exists, since the first premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is highly dubious metaphysically, depending on contingent intuitions we have developed from living in a universe with relatively simple laws of physics and with a strong thermodynamic arrow of time.

Click to expand...