In an earlier post, I suggested that Dr. Koons’ teleological argument could take us one step beyond the Uncaused Cause of the modal cosmological argument to an intelligent being.

But in case you’re worried about God’s goodness, here’s a much-neglected (and frequently misunderstood) argument that does purport to show that God is intrinsically good, and that He is the source of all goodness: Aquinas’ Fourth Way.

Aquinas’ Fourth Way by “oohlah” (Joe Ulatowski) on Praeter Necessitatum.

Aquinas on Perfectionby “oohlah” (Joe Ulatowski) on Praeter Necessitatum.

Defending the Fourth Way by “Saint Sebastian” (Daniel Jones) on Praeter Necessitatum.

I hope that helps.

Thank you. That was an interesting thread, but alas, was not the one I was thinking of. I don’t recall it being a philosophical argugument, but just a comment you made from logic that was rather profound, and I wanted simply to revisit it.

I appreciate your help though.

-best regards

“If the only conclusion is that the universe must have a cause, and there is nothing to indicate that God is that cause, then it’s a fairly limited argument. That is, the cause could be natural or supernatural, and hence, it isn’t much of an argument for or against a supernatural being.”

It depends on what YOU mean by God. But this causeless entity is very Other. Furthermore, that which is the cause and source of existence is, by definition, God.

I don’t really relate to calling God supernatural or natural. I guess I am a panentheist, I believe that there is nothing BUT God, because there cannot be anything else, ever. Yet I also think that the universe could become non manifest without affecting God’s existence and that God transcends nature/matter.

Well, that’s a start, anyway. And don’t forget, there are other arguments for the existence of God.

Yes. Thomas did not conclude with, therefore the Christian God exists. his conlcusion was, and this being we call God. (See post #4.)

You have to put all the pieces together to come up with Christian theism, not just one of them.

You are quite right in saying that the cosmological argument doesn’t get us very far by itself. However, it does yield some important negative results, as Dr. Robert Koons argues in his article, A New Look at the Cosmological Argument : whatever the Uncaused Cause is, it is not contingent, which means it is not a mere aggregate, it does not have any quantitatively measurable attributes, it is not essentially located in space or time, and it is not a physical object.

In section 7 of his article, Dr. Koons does however suggest a way in which the cosmological argument can lend support to the teleological argument. He carefully distinguishes the Thomistic teleological argument from Paley’s version (which he regards as flawed), and proposes an updated version of the Thomistic argument:

Suppose, however, that we think about the teleological argument in close connection with the cosmological argument, as Aquinas did. In this case, we already know that the cosmos has a First Cause, and that this cause is necessary and involves a necessary being, whom we call “God”.

The fact that a set of facts has been ordered to some purpose is empirically verifiable and does not logically entail (although it may suggest) the existence of any personal intentionality. A teleological law is simply a projectible, empirical generalization, which can be used to explain a set of facts by reference to their common effects (not their causes)….

For the sake of this argument, let us presume that we have discovered such teleological generalizations at the level of the cosmos, such as: all physical constants and Big Bang conditions are such as to make possible complex life forms. The cosmos, so characterized, is the effect of the First Cause. We attribute intelligence to human beings because of the teleological generalizations that characterize the actions of normal human beings. Since the effects of the First Cause are strongly analogous to the effects of human action in exactly this respect, we have the strongest possible reason for attributing to God something analogous to intelligence….

In the Thomistic argument, we start with four causally related terms: humans as cause of human actions, and the First Cause as cause of the cosmos. We notice that the cosmos shares the very feature of human actions upon which we base our attribution of intelligence to humans. We conclude that the First Cause is in some sense intelligent. Dissimilarities between the cosmos and human actions are irrelevant to this inference.

Well, that’s a start, anyway. And don’t forget, there are other arguments for the existence of God.

Thank you for your question. The only discussion that I’ve been able to find on Uncommon Descent of Aquinas’ First Way – the Argument from Motion, which goes back to Aristotle – is this one, in which StephenB was defending the soundness of the argument:

http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-reason/

Personally, I’m somewhat leery of using this argument in an apologetic context, because it requires so much unpackaging to make it intelligible to moderns, and also because it requires a certain level of familiarity with multiple disciplines (from quantum physics to neurophysiology) to refute all possible lines of attack by skeptics.

That said, I think it is a good argument. Here are some links which will help you. I’ve listed them roughly in order of digestibility, with the easiest at the top:

Jerry Coyne and Aquinas’ First Way by Dr. Michael Egnor.

The First Way by Dr. Christopher Martin.

Aquinas’ First Way by Brandon (a lecturer in philosophy) at http://branemrys.blogspot.com/ and
Further Thought on Aquinas’s First Way by the same author.

Audio of talk on Aquinas’s First Wayby Professor David Oderberg, given at the Joseph Butler Society, Oriel College, Oxford, May 2009. The talk is 1 hour, followed by 1 hour of Q&A.

I hope that helps.

Dr. Robert Koons provides an answer to your question about separate existences in his article, A New Look at the Cosmological Argument (page 5):

Axiom 6 is intended to capture Hume’s insight that a cause and its effect must be “separate existences”. The language of mereology, when applied to facts, enables us to state Hume’s principle precisely: a cause must not overlap its effect. It is very important to bear in mind that Axiom 6 does not require that a cause must not overlap its effect in space or time: it is only mereological overlap (the having of a common part) that is ruled out. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

So there you have it. “Separate” does not mean “able to exist on its own.” It simply means that God and His creation have no common parts – i.e. pantheism is false. Perhaps a better word than “separate” would be “distinct.”

You are quite right to say that “Without God nothing can exist.”

The first is absurd, and the second is a mystery. We cannot fathom it, yet it becomes a logical necessity. Once clearly understood (and it is an argument of logic and not one of spiritual feeling) all doubts about the existence of God cease, and not only cease but can never again arise.

However, I do not agree with this:

“a cause and its effect must both be actual; they must be distinct from each other, with no overlapping parts (”separate existences” in Hume’s terminology),a cause and its effect must both be actual; they must be distinct from each other, with no overlapping parts (”separate existences” in Hume’s terminology),”

I see no reason for this, nor do I even see how it can be so. Everything must arise out of God, and remain within God. Without God nothing can exist. If something could exist as separate from God it would have power indeed! If it were separate and without overlap, how would God reach it?