#14 Laws of Nature 6: Intentionality

The laws of nature have been believed to be intentional from before the Greeks through the development of modern science. They meet Brentano's aboutness criterion, and they and human committed intentions are the only two species of logical propagators.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Philosophy
• science
• laws of nature
• intentionality
• Brentano
• logical propagators

[dfpolis]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[1GodOnlyOne]

@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]

@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.

[gjsterp]

@1GodOnlyOne I also noticed you ignored my 'all atheists' rebuttal.

[gjsterp]

@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? .

[1GodOnlyOne]

@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.