/lit/ - Literature

it isn't a laterally torn anus.

>>7175096
wat

Does teleology still have a role to play in biology? How do you explain away the appearance of "purpose" in nature?

>>7175151
you rename it "teleonomy"

>>7175087
Seems entirely reasonable.

I doubt most of /lit/ understands it.

>>7175151
A little cutting-edge theory called natural selection

>>7176730
>natural selection
>tautology, the process

It all comes down to whether or not saying 'the conditions of the universe could have been different' is true, and I simply have no idea whether it is or not. Is that even a question for philosophy?

gay af tbh fam

>>7176749
this doesn't mean anything. don't be pathetic. give me some words worth half a fucking glance or just go back to fantasizing about letting hegel fuck you in every negativity you possess

It doesn't seem to be the case that the universe looks as if it was intelligently designed so the teleological argument is pretty bad. The world is a very chaotic place.

>>7175087
Isn't it basically "I can't imagine how this came to be without a creator, therefore there must be a creator?"

>>7175151
It's fairly simple.

In every case where we say X has the purpose of Y even though there's not a clear creator of X with goals of their own, there's at least one of two things meant:
+X is really good (efficient, precise, etc.) at doing Y
+X persistently does Y

neither of these are sufficient to impart a metaphysical purpose on an object. Consider, for instance, rocks. A rock over the edge of a cliff doesn't have the "purpose" of falling, it just persistently does fall when it is put over the edge of a cliff. A more difficult example: the human heart. We say it "has the purpose" of pumping blood but this is a term of convenience: what is certainly correct is that the heart does pump blood throughout the body persistently, but it only does this because of its chemical properties. We only have a strong impression that there really is a purpose in the nature of the heart because the things the heart persistently does are favorable to us (we would die if our hearts stopped beating and that's not good).

>>7175087
Whilst its easy with some things when it comes to defining the purpose of more advanced and complex things what consitutes purposes seems rather subjective.

If you're talking about the Fifth Way, it's still sound.

If you're talking about Watchmaker arguments, it's relatively uninteresting even if successful, and very probably is not successful.

>>7175087

archaic, half baked, jumps to convenient conclusions

shit

>>7176823
I wake up every morning and everything is in it's place. The sky is above me, the earth below, the sun moves over me like clockwork, heavy things sink, light things rise, grass is green. The world is extremely ordered. The order in one cell of your body is so elegant that it puts architechts to shame.

>>7176835
No, it's that we observe a purpose immanent in natural things, so there must be an all encompassing intellect which directs these things towards their purpose (as purpose is the product of mind)

if you don't believe in God then you are ultimately committed to the idea that order can arise out of chaos, but that undermines everything.

>>7176823
>It doesn't seem to be the case that the universe looks as if it was intelligently designed
Please revisit the teleogical argument

>>7175087
Literally, no argument. Just time wasting on this planet.

>>7178076
The same Laws that creates the universe in every moment are the same rules that enables what humans refer to as "life". If one looks closer at this supposed "life" though, one can observe that nothing in it's makeup defies the Laws. An asteroid could crash into earth tomorrow and there would be no antropomorphized god-creature with a human voice that would care.

>>7178198
That is not to say that i don't believe in psychic phenomena(which is why i said LAWS not natural laws) but i don't believe in a personalized God.

I suppose if one wanted to become a philologist for a while one could surmise that the ideas of a specific God were an idea to take spirituality away from people or funnel their spirituality through accepted channels.

>>7178076
No. Fucking idiot.

>>7175087
It's shit. Dawkins alone blows it the fuck out. The only rebuttal that defenders of the argument have left is "but we just don't know God's plan, man!"

>>7178076
how does that undermine everything?

>>7175151
>Does teleology still have a role to play in biology?

No, otherwise pic related would have been a straight line

>>7178076
>you are ultimately committed to the idea that order can arise out of chaos, but that undermines everything.

Nature thinks otherwise

Ontologically it is impossible for a God to exist for us and at the same time for us to be created in his image. God's existence is actually illogical.

The ontological argument is far more interesting

>>7175087

I'm swamped with school work right now so I promised myself I would'nt engage in any 4chan theology until after I have a few things completed. But, I think this bit on Feser's blog is illuminating to just what Aquinas' notions of Teleology actually entail. Especially since people confused Teleology with Intelligent design. There is no point debating about a straw argument.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

God bless you all.

>>7179895
>I promised myself I would'nt engage in any 4chan theology until after I have a few things completed.
you might as well go somewhere else where youre more appretiated. Have you gone to the Classical Theism forum?

>>7180198
4chan needs evangelisation. And it's kinda working for some people.

>>7180212
>4chan needs evangelisation
lol, no, people go on 4chan to blow off some smoke anonymously, not to see different points of view

>>7178964
If order can arise out of chaos then there is no reason to trust the contents of our own minds, because our minds would rest on faulty foundations. The only way our minds can have certain knowledge is if they ultimately rest upon, reflect, or are a part of an absolute mind which can know the truth with absolute certainty. The greater cannot come from the less. Minds cannot come out of chaotic particle interactions, they must come out of the Absolute Mind.

>>7180212

>4chan needs evangelisation.

>>7178978
>teleology is the same as Paley teleology
>implying God doesnt want more diversity in his creatures
nice b8

>>7180247
>If order can arise out of chaos then there is no reason to trust the contents of our own minds, because our minds would rest on faulty foundations.

Which knowledge does. Any piece of knowledge is potentially fallible, that doesn't make it automatically wrong

>The only way our minds can have certain knowledge is if they ultimately rest upon, reflect, or are a part of an absolute mind which can know the truth with absolute certainty.

And how do you know this 'absolute mind' isn't lying to you? What even is an 'absolute mind'?

>Minds cannot come out of chaotic particle interactions, they must come out of the Absolute Mind.

Haha, what? You just mindlessly asserted this. Your whole spiel about certain knowledge is also a load of shit, since anyone involved with any form of knowledge would happily accept an assumption of ignorance and an assumption of fallibility. In fact, knowledge can't grow without these assumptions

>>7180264
>>implying God doesnt want more diversity in his creatures

And how do you know he does? Did you talk to him about it? Does he also like the strife and death that comes along with this diversity?

>>7180283

>Which knowledge does. Any piece of knowledge is potentially fallible, that doesn't make it automatically wrong
You are confusing knowledge with hypothesis or conjecture. Hypotheses are fallible, knowledge, that which is known, is true and certain by definition. For knowledge to be possible there must be a sure foundation / principle which is true in and of itself, which principle is the Absolute Mind which pervades and defines all existence.

>And how do you know this 'absolute mind' isn't lying to you? What even is an 'absolute mind'?

It can't lie. Only a limited mind capable of wavering between truth and falsehood can lie.
The absolute mind is not a separate mind bigger than mine which "talks" to me, it's the source of my own mind and my mind cannot exist without it.

>>7180283
>Which knowledge does. Any piece of knowledge is potentially fallible
*any piece of scientific knowledge
>Haha, what? You just mindlessly asserted this
how can something give what it doesnt have?

>>7180243
>>7180243
Depends on the board and the person. >>7180260

>>7180321
In Aristotle's language it is the noeseos noesis, the thought of thought, the primary intellectual substance from which all particular intellects have their being. If intellects have their being from random particle interactions then they are absolutely untrustworthy and we should adopt quietism immediately. This is what I mean when I say the idea that order can arise out of chaos undermines everything. It makes thinking impossible, it's a thought that undermines all thought, a principle that destroys all principles.

>>7180321
>knowledge, that which is known, is true and certain by definition.

That's what everyone says until something gets horribly disproven. It used to be knowledge that the Titanic was unsinkable. After all, it was the most advanced, luxurious ship in the world, built by the best mechanics. What could possibly sink it? This 'knowledge' didn't take into account that it was ignorant about certain facts, such as massive icebergs that can rip an entire front hull

>It can't lie. Only a limited mind capable of wavering between truth and falsehood can lie.

So in other words, the absolute mind is limited?
Doesn't sound very absolute then, does it?

>>7180353

>That's what everyone says until something gets horribly disproven. It used to be knowledge that the Titanic was unsinkable. After all, it was the most advanced, luxurious ship in the world, built by the best mechanics. What could possibly sink it? This 'knowledge' didn't take into account that it was ignorant about certain facts, such as massive icebergs that can rip an entire front hull

That the titanic was unsinkable was a hypothesis or opinion, not knowledge.

>So in other words, the absolute mind is limited?

No, because not being able to tell a lie is not a limitation. Being able to tell a lie really means not having the power to tell the truth. Telling a lie is an intellectual weakness or defect, not a power.

>>7180368
Saying that not being able to tell a lie is a limitation of a mind is like saying not being able to lose is a limitation of a game player.

>>7180247
>The only way our minds can have certain knowledge is if they ultimately rest upon, reflect, or are a part of an absolute mind which can know the truth with absolute certainty.
Not having absolute knowledge should bother nobody. We have a good enough notion of knowledge to get us by.

>>7180341
>If intellects have their being from random particle interactions then they are absolutely untrustworthy
apparently not, since they've allowed us to develop a wide array of advanced technologies.

>>7180513
>apparently not, since they've allowed us to develop a wide array of advanced technologies.
well then that means they dont have their being from random particle interactions

>>7180565
all you're doing is taking two unsupported assumptions and pretending that they support each other

>>7180574
i wasnt taking anything, im not the anon youre talking to

>>7180580
well what you said does nothing to validate the idea that human intellects absolutely cannot come from random particle interactions.

>>7175087
Not books

>>7180589
no, what validates it is the common sense that tells us that nothing can give what it doesnt have, even the thousands of species are the mere result of the same genetic material rearranged over the years

>>7180601
>common sense
kek

but of course God can just come from nothing (or be eternal), because of reasons, right?

>>7180608
>memery
>red herring
kay, wasnt expecting much, but still...

>>7180341
>we should adopt quietism immediately.

Not that I agree with your axioms but what is wrong with this?

>>7180601
>common sense that tells us that nothing can give what it doesnt have

What makes common sense a valid defence? Wouldnt common sense defeat the idea of an immaterial absolute intellect?

>>7180724
No, common sense and a common source for our minds go hand in hand.

>>7180751
if you're going to introduce a special snowflake notion of "common sense" it'd help if you defined it

>>7180751
But common sense seems to link them to purely material ones. How can a dualist system be common sense?

>>7180761
Well common sense implies there is a universal aspect to our thinking, so that agrees well with the idea that our minds have a universal mind as their source.

>>7175087
I think it's quite compelling in its contemporary 'argument from fine-tuning' form. when combined with a contemporary form of the cosmological argument, I think the two make a pretty decent cumulative case for the existence of some general divine being. justifying any particular existing religion I find more difficult, though.

>>7180796
>common sense implies there is a universal aspect to our thinking
so then you need to defend the very existence of common sense. Is there a universal aspect to human thought, across all cultures? If so, what is it? If you arrive at that, prove that it's not just a natural product of biological evolution.

>>7180601
Common sense tells us that heavier things should fall faster and that the Sun orbits the earth.