@thejewishagnostic The idea that God is separated from nature is unfunded. God is required to complete the logic of science. See my #15. Peace, Dennis
There seems to be an crucial ambiguity here between "intentional" in the sense of something have representational (or better, semantic) content, and "intentional" in the sense of having intended or planned to do something. Given that intentionality in the former sense is taken to be a mark of the mental, if the laws of nature were intentional in that sense they wouldn't be indicative of a mind or thought so much as they would literally be thoughts. A rather strange conclusion!
@jlke45 Dr. Polis has 37 videos I believe are based on his soon to be published book: God, Science and the Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism. Darwin writes: Everything results from designed laws. "Seeing the laws of nature as God's will". Edmund Husserl: consciousness is always intentional. Franz Brentano regarding the ontological and psychological status of objects of thought. It has been defined as "aboutness". Perhaps watching all his videos or xianphil doht com might help to clarify.
@jlke45 Intention: an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. It's determined mentally that is the content, upon some action or result is the plan. Seems to me that there is absolutely no crucial ambiguity. There's only one "sense" of intentionality therefore the laws of nature are indicative of a mind. Is this the only video in the series that you've watched?
@shizzleman8 Of Dr. Polis' videos this is the only one I've seen, so I'll only comment on this one. From the first half of the video (esp. at 1:12) he uses "intention" to mean purpose, but then later he brings in "intentionality" to mean mental content. This sense of "intentionality" is different from purpose, and laws of nature are "about" physical things in at best an analogical sense to intentionality. If a state is intentional it represents some other part of reality.
@jlke45 #21 in the Good Doctor's series is where he breaks out the Big Guns, the TWO SUB-SYSTEM MIND! I'm just an ordained minister, Doc Polis teaches classes at his Church, used to, so he's in the ministry also, I'm not even Catholic but NBC plays their football games every week (Notre Dame) & from the looks of things every one who goes to that school graduates with some type of Ordination. I'm not the one to philosophize with you. CartesianTheist & others will yt search dfpolis 1st return
@shizzleman8 Now, there's debate about what precisely the laws of nature are, but whatever they are, they surely don't represent some physical reality because there *are* that physical reality. Purpose and intentionality are both indicative of the mental, but in very different ways.
@jlke45 Consider how we know others' intentions. Most naturalists would agree they can be inferred from behavior. If I go to the store, then absent some external compulsion or mental illness, I intend to go to the store. The behavior is not the thought but expresses the thought - our means of knowing it. Both of your senses are marks of the mental. My commitment to go to the store is more than a representation, it is an EFFECTIVE thought. How is being effective strange? Peace, Dennis
@jlke45 I have read your comments. You have not responded to my point that both concepts reflect mental activity. You also did not explain how effective thoughts, aka commitments to act, are strange. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Well, as I said to shizzleman, purpose and intentionality both indicate mentality, but they are different things for all that--yet in this video you treat them as if they were the same thing. I'm not saying that thoughts leading to action is inherently strange, but that by your line of reasoning the laws of nature would themselves be thoughts, which does strike me as odd.
@jlke45 The laws of nature & human committed intentions - committed purposes - are in a genus (logical propagators) with no other members I know of - do you? They are generically similar. That allows specific differences: they are not identical, but they are more than analogous. It is not inherently strange that the laws of nature are acts of will. They have been since their appearance in Western thought. Being "strange" is not a rational objection, just a sign of unfamiliarity. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Look, I understand what you're talking about as far as the teleological argument goes; there's certainly logical space for it and it's idea I myself have a good degree of sympathy for, but that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that intention (purpose) and intentionality (aboutness, representation) are two different concepts and you seem to be conflating them if for no other reason than that they sound similar. Please do some reading on intentionality and try to understand.
@jlke45 I agree: purpose & aboutness are distinct, but can you have purpose without aboutness? A purpose is a drive to effect a certain state, which it is about. The content of my purpose is my goal. Target states are implicit in present states & their dynamics. As they contain the same information, they represent the target state. So, I'm not conflating words. Further, the laws of nature & our intentions are both present dispositions to future states, they share a common dynamic. Peace, DP
@dfpolis The problem with your logic is you see an intended target state, but the target state that we consider normal for our existence is not constant in the universe: not even in the solar syatem. Everywhere we look we see varied states. There appears to be no general or fixed target state, but rather an endless variety of states, so that our state can not be considered intentional, but merely just one of the whole possible numbers of states. We exist in one state that supports life.
@gjsterp There is a difference between an intermediate goal or target and an ultimate one. If I go to Chicago, I will have a series of intermediate points I intend to pass though. They are not final destinations. Still, they are fully intended. Thus, it does not follow that because we pass through a series of target states that those states are not intended. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis You missed the point of my argument completely. You are comparing points (fixed locations) with varied states (environments). Points are fixed places, but environments vary (temperature, moisture, etc.) even locally, and even the extreme environments on this planet have shown us the wide range life can exist and thrive.
The point was that these environments do not appear to be intended, but merely vary in a range that supports life.
@gjsterp I do not believe points exist. They are only abstractions. So, I don't see how I am making the comparison you suggest. Also, I see no reason why God can't intend many things at many places and times. I see diversity as a fully intended part of creation. Every ecologist knows that diversity stabilizes ecosystems. Peace, Dennis
@gjsterp I don't recall comparing points & varied environments. Could you give me the time mark? Buddha had a "no soul, no god" doctrine on his culture's ideas of soul & gods.. The Buddhist Logicians, however, proved the existence of God in the same way as Aristotle. Aristotle said God is the ultimate cause and "self-thinking thought." Aquinas is clear that we can only speak of God as the Source of the things we experience & by saying what He is not, e.g. not limited. cont'd
@gjsterp Your comment on the ignorance of past ages is very prejudiced. Outside of science, the general level of understanding in our age is in many ways inferior to that of Aristotle and Aquinas. The idea of logic is that if you start with true premises & apply valid reasoning, you can reach sound conclusions. These conclusions are not invalidated by advances in other areas. They can only be overturned by showing their premises are false. Of course nature is intended by God. Peace, DP
@1GodOnlyOne Environments 'appear intended' to you because you have not considered all the environments possible, which is just the natural diversity of the universe and, especially from our very limited perspective, the earth.
It is not for me to prove otherwise. It is for you to prove your god intended the environments.
Presently all we see are the mechanics of our planet that supports life.
Mechanics is not god. Search Laplace to Napoleon 'I had no need of that hypothesis.'
@gjsterp Environments appear intended because they are intended.
The natural diversity of the universe is also intended.
Yes, it is for you to prove otherwise -- otherwise, your personal opinion is to be rejected.
God is not mine -- you and I both belong to him, and since I never stated that God intended any environment, I don't need to prove that. I merely reject, with good reason, your assertion that environments are not intended.
@1GodOnlyOne You infer a god when you state that environments are intended.
My personal opinion is backed up by libraries full of science books explaining the cause of these environments. The Law of Gases, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, etc.
No where will you find any intention inferred, only physical causes and testable explanations..
I guess I will just have to dummy up and ignore science.
@gjsterp There is only one God, and stating that environments are intended makes no specific reference to God at all. It could easily refer to some other person who caused the environment.
No library books back up your silly, incorrect opinion.
You are too stupid to infer any intention, but your personal stupidity fails to prove that there is no intention.
There's no need for you to "dummy up," believe me -- no need whatsoever! LOL
@gjsterp You are the only person who has used the term "all atheists" on this channel page, so if you posted an "all atheists" rebuttal, it must have been directed at yourself, because it couldn't have possibly applied to me.
In any case, I didn't see any rebuttal of any kind written by you, so I couldn't have ignored one.
@1GodOnlyOne Three days ago you wrote, 'There is only one God, and he advises all human beings to be peaceful. The atheist disobeys this advice, and that is the cause of wars.'
@dfpolis If the laws of nature are intentional, then everything in nature is intentional. If everything in nature is intentional, that includes the forces which are destructive. If the destructive forces are intentional, then they have something that intended them to happen. That something in your definition must be god.
This is a very ancient concept and founded on ignorance and superstition. The gods are behind everything.
The laws of nature are about that which we can observe and nothing more
@gjsterp The laws of nature in no way depend on our observation - a very anthropocentric view. They've operated at least since the big bang, long before us. Our evolution was fully implicit in them & the universe's initial state. Thinking God based on ignorance Is based on the myth that all theists live in the bush. Many great minds (Aristotle, the Buddhist logicians, Ibn Sina, Aquinas, etc.) have deduced His existence. Building the new may require intentional destruction of the old.
@dfpolis I never said that "the laws of nature depend on our observation."
You better go back and reread just what many of the great theologians said they could know about or express about god. For most it amounted to silence.
But people have not been happy being silent about their gods. They have to debate what each their gods want for the world, and it turns out that a Holy War is really the only way to settle matters about a subject we can know noting about.
@gjsterp If the laws of nature are "about that which we can observe and nothing more," they necessarily depend on our capacity to observe. But, if they are universal, they operated long before we could observe & apply to things we will not and cannot observe. I've read a lot of theologians. I'm not saying what cannot be said.
I see no need to settle theological questions with violence, and certain cannot agree that it is the only way to deal with differences. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis I strongly adhere to violence as a means to resolving differences. My God is a Warrior. The most violent soul is the one that Rescues. The English and the USA have been policing and ruling the world for the last 2,000 years, that's what Dad used to say.
Children and small animals know the difference between a big person that loves them and one that doesn't. Watched 'What Would You Do?' last night. Big guys were the only ones 'laying hands' on the "abusive" African American guy!
@1GodOnlyOne The atheist is NOT peaceful? All atheists? That statement carries a very big responsibility. Do you know ALL atheists?
And how many Christians do you think are dropping bombs on others this very instant, or do YOU think they ALL atheists?
It's still a fact that the majority of American military personnel would say they are Christian or at least believe in god. What they all need to believe is that their god is against all killing.
This is a poor objection. By the same logic, I would have to demonstrate there were shoe factories before I could say something is a shoe. We don't need to prove a source exists to know what something is. All we need is to understand the conditions that make what we are looking at be this or that kind of thing. Peace, Dennis
Epic logic fail. Intent is the product of a mind so before you can claim that the laws of nature are intentional you must first demonstrate that there is a mind for that intention to be rooted in.
@thejewishagnostic The idea that God is separated from nature is unfunded. God is required to complete the logic of science. See my #15. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
@thejewishagnostic I give 2 arguments. Watch the video again. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
There seems to be an crucial ambiguity here between "intentional" in the sense of something have representational (or better, semantic) content, and "intentional" in the sense of having intended or planned to do something. Given that intentionality in the former sense is taken to be a mark of the mental, if the laws of nature were intentional in that sense they wouldn't be indicative of a mind or thought so much as they would literally be thoughts. A rather strange conclusion!
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 Dr. Polis has 37 videos I believe are based on his soon to be published book: God, Science and the Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism. Darwin writes: Everything results from designed laws. "Seeing the laws of nature as God's will". Edmund Husserl: consciousness is always intentional. Franz Brentano regarding the ontological and psychological status of objects of thought. It has been defined as "aboutness". Perhaps watching all his videos or xianphil doht com might help to clarify.
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@jlke45 Intention: an act or instance of determining mentally upon some action or result. It's determined mentally that is the content, upon some action or result is the plan. Seems to me that there is absolutely no crucial ambiguity. There's only one "sense" of intentionality therefore the laws of nature are indicative of a mind. Is this the only video in the series that you've watched?
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Of Dr. Polis' videos this is the only one I've seen, so I'll only comment on this one. From the first half of the video (esp. at 1:12) he uses "intention" to mean purpose, but then later he brings in "intentionality" to mean mental content. This sense of "intentionality" is different from purpose, and laws of nature are "about" physical things in at best an analogical sense to intentionality. If a state is intentional it represents some other part of reality.
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 #21 in the Good Doctor's series is where he breaks out the Big Guns, the TWO SUB-SYSTEM MIND! I'm just an ordained minister, Doc Polis teaches classes at his Church, used to, so he's in the ministry also, I'm not even Catholic but NBC plays their football games every week (Notre Dame) & from the looks of things every one who goes to that school graduates with some type of Ordination. I'm not the one to philosophize with you. CartesianTheist & others will yt search dfpolis 1st return
shizzleman8 8 months ago
@shizzleman8 Now, there's debate about what precisely the laws of nature are, but whatever they are, they surely don't represent some physical reality because there *are* that physical reality. Purpose and intentionality are both indicative of the mental, but in very different ways.
jlke45 8 months ago
@jlke45 Consider how we know others' intentions. Most naturalists would agree they can be inferred from behavior. If I go to the store, then absent some external compulsion or mental illness, I intend to go to the store. The behavior is not the thought but expresses the thought - our means of knowing it. Both of your senses are marks of the mental. My commitment to go to the store is more than a representation, it is an EFFECTIVE thought. How is being effective strange? Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 7 months ago
@dfpolis All well and good, but you're still confusing two different concepts. Please refer to my comments to shizzleman8.
jlke45 7 months ago
@jlke45 I have read your comments. You have not responded to my point that both concepts reflect mental activity. You also did not explain how effective thoughts, aka commitments to act, are strange. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 7 months ago
@dfpolis Well, as I said to shizzleman, purpose and intentionality both indicate mentality, but they are different things for all that--yet in this video you treat them as if they were the same thing. I'm not saying that thoughts leading to action is inherently strange, but that by your line of reasoning the laws of nature would themselves be thoughts, which does strike me as odd.
jlke45 7 months ago
@jlke45 The laws of nature & human committed intentions - committed purposes - are in a genus (logical propagators) with no other members I know of - do you? They are generically similar. That allows specific differences: they are not identical, but they are more than analogous. It is not inherently strange that the laws of nature are acts of will. They have been since their appearance in Western thought. Being "strange" is not a rational objection, just a sign of unfamiliarity. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Look, I understand what you're talking about as far as the teleological argument goes; there's certainly logical space for it and it's idea I myself have a good degree of sympathy for, but that's beside the point. What I'm saying is that intention (purpose) and intentionality (aboutness, representation) are two different concepts and you seem to be conflating them if for no other reason than that they sound similar. Please do some reading on intentionality and try to understand.
jlke45 6 months ago
@jlke45 I agree: purpose & aboutness are distinct, but can you have purpose without aboutness? A purpose is a drive to effect a certain state, which it is about. The content of my purpose is my goal. Target states are implicit in present states & their dynamics. As they contain the same information, they represent the target state. So, I'm not conflating words. Further, the laws of nature & our intentions are both present dispositions to future states, they share a common dynamic. Peace, DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis The problem with your logic is you see an intended target state, but the target state that we consider normal for our existence is not constant in the universe: not even in the solar syatem. Everywhere we look we see varied states. There appears to be no general or fixed target state, but rather an endless variety of states, so that our state can not be considered intentional, but merely just one of the whole possible numbers of states. We exist in one state that supports life.
gjsterp 3 months ago
@gjsterp There is a difference between an intermediate goal or target and an ultimate one. If I go to Chicago, I will have a series of intermediate points I intend to pass though. They are not final destinations. Still, they are fully intended. Thus, it does not follow that because we pass through a series of target states that those states are not intended. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
@dfpolis You missed the point of my argument completely. You are comparing points (fixed locations) with varied states (environments). Points are fixed places, but environments vary (temperature, moisture, etc.) even locally, and even the extreme environments on this planet have shown us the wide range life can exist and thrive.
The point was that these environments do not appear to be intended, but merely vary in a range that supports life.
Not intended? No god needed.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@gjsterp I do not believe points exist. They are only abstractions. So, I don't see how I am making the comparison you suggest. Also, I see no reason why God can't intend many things at many places and times. I see diversity as a fully intended part of creation. Every ecologist knows that diversity stabilizes ecosystems. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
@dfpolis Den, I would have expected you to read my comment more critically.
I wrote points (fixed locations) which you inferred and wrote that we can not (logically) compare points with varied environments.
Buddha was silent on the god issue.
Neither Aquinas nor Aristotle could say what god was, and so could not say anything worth challenging.
All these men lived in a very ignorant age, and their reasoning reflects this fact.
Environmental diversity is just a natural course of events.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@gjsterp I don't recall comparing points & varied environments. Could you give me the time mark? Buddha had a "no soul, no god" doctrine on his culture's ideas of soul & gods.. The Buddhist Logicians, however, proved the existence of God in the same way as Aristotle. Aristotle said God is the ultimate cause and "self-thinking thought." Aquinas is clear that we can only speak of God as the Source of the things we experience & by saying what He is not, e.g. not limited. cont'd
dfpolis 2 months ago
@gjsterp Your comment on the ignorance of past ages is very prejudiced. Outside of science, the general level of understanding in our age is in many ways inferior to that of Aristotle and Aquinas. The idea of logic is that if you start with true premises & apply valid reasoning, you can reach sound conclusions. These conclusions are not invalidated by advances in other areas. They can only be overturned by showing their premises are false. Of course nature is intended by God. Peace, DP
dfpolis 2 months ago
@gjsterp Yes, the environments do appear intended, and you have failed to provide evidence otherwise.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Environments 'appear intended' to you because you have not considered all the environments possible, which is just the natural diversity of the universe and, especially from our very limited perspective, the earth.
It is not for me to prove otherwise. It is for you to prove your god intended the environments.
Presently all we see are the mechanics of our planet that supports life.
Mechanics is not god. Search Laplace to Napoleon 'I had no need of that hypothesis.'
gjsterp 2 months ago
Comment removed
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
Comment removed
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@gjsterp Environments appear intended because they are intended.
The natural diversity of the universe is also intended.
Yes, it is for you to prove otherwise -- otherwise, your personal opinion is to be rejected.
God is not mine -- you and I both belong to him, and since I never stated that God intended any environment, I don't need to prove that. I merely reject, with good reason, your assertion that environments are not intended.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I see a lot more than mechanics that support life, but the blind man sees a lot less.
I never stated that mechanics was God. It would seem that you are the one who imagines mechanics to be God.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne You infer a god when you state that environments are intended.
My personal opinion is backed up by libraries full of science books explaining the cause of these environments. The Law of Gases, Thermodynamics, Chemistry, etc.
No where will you find any intention inferred, only physical causes and testable explanations..
I guess I will just have to dummy up and ignore science.
I mean, what has it given us?
Cures for many 'intended' diseases? .
gjsterp 2 months ago
@gjsterp There is only one God, and stating that environments are intended makes no specific reference to God at all. It could easily refer to some other person who caused the environment.
No library books back up your silly, incorrect opinion.
You are too stupid to infer any intention, but your personal stupidity fails to prove that there is no intention.
There's no need for you to "dummy up," believe me -- no need whatsoever! LOL
The body cures diseases, science does not.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Your calling me stupid reflects more on you than on me.
The environment that I have referred to is the earth's, and how you think 'some other person (could have) caused' it, needs explaining by you.
I assume the only 'person' that could have intended this environment is the god you imagine.
I think, if you COULD get honest with yourself, you can not even imagine what your god is like.
If you can you should write a book. When it's published I'll be sure to buy a copy.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne I also noticed you ignored my 'all atheists' rebuttal.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@gjsterp You are the only person who has used the term "all atheists" on this channel page, so if you posted an "all atheists" rebuttal, it must have been directed at yourself, because it couldn't have possibly applied to me.
In any case, I didn't see any rebuttal of any kind written by you, so I couldn't have ignored one.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne Three days ago you wrote, 'There is only one God, and he advises all human beings to be peaceful. The atheist disobeys this advice, and that is the cause of wars.'
ALL ATHEISTS is inferred.
You really should try to remember what you wrote.
My rebuttal presently shows one day ago.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@dfpolis If the laws of nature are intentional, then everything in nature is intentional. If everything in nature is intentional, that includes the forces which are destructive. If the destructive forces are intentional, then they have something that intended them to happen. That something in your definition must be god.
This is a very ancient concept and founded on ignorance and superstition. The gods are behind everything.
The laws of nature are about that which we can observe and nothing more
gjsterp 3 months ago
@gjsterp The laws of nature in no way depend on our observation - a very anthropocentric view. They've operated at least since the big bang, long before us. Our evolution was fully implicit in them & the universe's initial state. Thinking God based on ignorance Is based on the myth that all theists live in the bush. Many great minds (Aristotle, the Buddhist logicians, Ibn Sina, Aquinas, etc.) have deduced His existence. Building the new may require intentional destruction of the old.
dfpolis 2 months ago
@dfpolis I never said that "the laws of nature depend on our observation."
You better go back and reread just what many of the great theologians said they could know about or express about god. For most it amounted to silence.
But people have not been happy being silent about their gods. They have to debate what each their gods want for the world, and it turns out that a Holy War is really the only way to settle matters about a subject we can know noting about.
gjsterp 2 months ago
@gjsterp If the laws of nature are "about that which we can observe and nothing more," they necessarily depend on our capacity to observe. But, if they are universal, they operated long before we could observe & apply to things we will not and cannot observe. I've read a lot of theologians. I'm not saying what cannot be said.
I see no need to settle theological questions with violence, and certain cannot agree that it is the only way to deal with differences. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
@dfpolis I strongly adhere to violence as a means to resolving differences. My God is a Warrior. The most violent soul is the one that Rescues. The English and the USA have been policing and ruling the world for the last 2,000 years, that's what Dad used to say.
Children and small animals know the difference between a big person that loves them and one that doesn't. Watched 'What Would You Do?' last night. Big guys were the only ones 'laying hands' on the "abusive" African American guy!
shizzleman8 2 months ago
@gjsterp There is only one God, and he advises all human beings to be peaceful. The atheist disobeys this advice, and that is the cause of wars.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne The atheist is NOT peaceful? All atheists? That statement carries a very big responsibility. Do you know ALL atheists?
And how many Christians do you think are dropping bombs on others this very instant, or do YOU think they ALL atheists?
It's still a fact that the majority of American military personnel would say they are Christian or at least believe in god. What they all need to believe is that their god is against all killing.
Get a grip with reality my friend !
gjsterp 2 months ago
This is a poor objection. By the same logic, I would have to demonstrate there were shoe factories before I could say something is a shoe. We don't need to prove a source exists to know what something is. All we need is to understand the conditions that make what we are looking at be this or that kind of thing. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 8 months ago
Epic logic fail. Intent is the product of a mind so before you can claim that the laws of nature are intentional you must first demonstrate that there is a mind for that intention to be rooted in.
ketsan 8 months ago