Arguments about God

[GioD]

GioD, why is God necessary for intentionality?

I meant to say God is necessary for teleology. Sometimes I confuse the terms.

[SatanTheAlien]

I guess one would first have to see evidence for teleology to blame it on a god. I think it is possible, though, for things to exist with an end purpose without there being a God. We design things for an end cause, and that thing then is teleological in nature.

[GioD]

I guess one would first have to see evidence for teleology to blame it on a god.

How about biological teleology? Our hearts have the teleological purpose to pump blood, this is why surgery, defibrillators, and medicine are made for when they don't.

We design things for an end cause, and that thing then is teleological in nature.

Some teleology is merely human-projected, but some isn't. Objective teleology implies an intent behind them, which implies in turn a person (God) behind the intent.

[SatanTheAlien]

What in nature is teteological besides what we humans create or other intelligent species create?

[GioD]

What in nature is teteological besides what we humans create or other intelligent species create?

Body parts. Our hearts ought to pump blood, regardless of whether or not we think they do.

[Griggsy]

That we arrive at truths reflects the connections amongst thoughts, not those chemical actions unless they are a psychological disturbance. This physical determination otherwise has no corellation with the inferences.

[Griggsy]

Yeshua would come from a Yahweh-denounced Davidic branch and thus could never be the Messiah,for whom most Jews carry no torch!

[GioD]

Yeshua would come from a Yahweh-denounced Davidic branch and thus could never be the Messiah,for whom most Jews carry no torch!

Just because some members of the David's heritage were condemned doesn't mean the whole branch is theologically barren. I think Jewish theologians would have picked up a contradiction that big!

[SatanTheAlien]

You assume the end purpose of the heart is to pump blood. It just happened to evolve that way. Many little changes lead to that function.

The fact we believe we arrive at truths, only shows that the universe produced AI, i.e. humans, but not that our thinking about truths or coming to truths came from a need of a final cause.

[GioD]

You assume the end purpose of the heart is to pump blood. It just happened to evolve that way. Many little changes lead to that function.

The fact that you say the heart has a function here implies teleology! Evolution, too, is perfectly compatible with teleology - even if we reached the functions we have now by chance, the fact they have end purposes at all implies teleology.

[SatanTheAlien]

The fact that you say the heart has a function here implies teleology! Evolution, too, is perfectly compatible with teleology - even if we reached the functions we have now by chance, the fact they have end purposes at all implies teleology.

Not at all. Just because the heart serves a function to pump blood now, doesn't mean that was the final cause, or purpose, as if evolution was aiming at producing an organ that would pump blood because that was the final cause or need. If teleology means anything else, then it is a rather useless word. It would be like saying, things have purpose. Yeah, everyone agrees that many things serve a purpose, like a heart pumps blood, eyes see. etc.

[GioD]

Yeah, everyone agrees that many things serve a purpose, like a heart pumps blood, eyes see. etc.

Then you agree teleology exists. Now the debate is whether or not that implies the existence of God or not. Do you want to discuss that?

[Griggsy]

He is necessary for intentionality be there that teleology of which you so love! But as science finds no divine or other teleology as SatantheAlien really fathoms, then no God can exist,because He has to use intentionality/teleology and doesn't.
No, John Hick fails to overcome this with his epistemic distance argument that God hides himself ambiguously so as not to overcome our putative free wills.No,because that is just one of his ever-ready rationalizations! Schellenberg's hiddenness argument also eviscerates that dubiety.
Satan, please respond to the thread about the composition fallacy! I'm in a dither about the fallacy.

[GioD]

He is necessary for intentionality be there that teleology of which you so love! But as science finds no divine or other teleology as SatantheAlien really fathoms, then no God can exist,because He has to use intentionality/teleology and doesn't.

If teleology exists and the teleological argument is sound God is performing an act of intentionality. It's that simple. There's no question begged that God "uses" teleology. And science was designed to ignore teleology, so appealing to science not "finding" teleology is question-begging at its finest.

[Griggsy]

Hardly,because that is exactly what science finds true, and ti's you theists who beg the question of that teleology as Carneades eons ago noted!
T'is something that theists ever accuse anyone else of begging questions,because " Logic is the bane of theists."