I reply in all charity to your many objections because it is good practice for me. right, so someone pointed out that my argument of intelligent design doesn't argue for intelligent design but for creationsim - let me say that, though perhaps you do and I should, I didn't distinguish between the two. God is the creator, yes, and He is intelligent. He neither covers space nor time, is neither as small as a sub-atomic particle, nor as large as the infinite limits of the universe, for He is all and holds all in being, time and space included. These may seem to you very strange beliefs, very stupid, because they can't be proven. That's why it's called faith, it can't be proven. Faith is a gift, but you dont't get it without wanting it. I've read what I've read, and I wanted to have faith, and I was given it. Interestingly enough, the only one's who truly believe in Christ are Christians and Satanists. LOL Anyway, right, objections.
1. "Perhaps the logic holds thus far (if you ignore some rather obvious possibilities like an infinite past for all matter"
Why is that an "obvious possibility"? I would say the exact opposite. Something doesn't come from nothing, no matter how hard you try. There has to have been a first thing whereby all matter came into existence. Non-being to being is impossible. The very idea of existence is grounded on the fact that the essence of a thing moves from being in potential to it being actualized. Things just don't exist on their own - have you ever witnessed any given thing come of its own out of absolute nothing?
2. That logic does not follow from the argument that God was the "first thing".
Mea Culpa - I explained above that I did not make admittance of the idea that one who is the first thing could be unintelligent - however, Thomas argues that because God is first likewise in perfection - the fourth way to prove the credibility of God's existence in the Summa, He likewise must have the most perfect intellect.
3."What exactly does this mean, to you? An example perhaps? Could you give a defintion of "end" as used by Aquinas? Perhaps "goal" is interchangeable, but the "goal" of whom or what?"
The unintelligent thing. An ocean for example, what does it do? Why does it do it - not how, but why? Were we to completely do away with the question of why a thing does something I really think that we would be able to live without the existence of God, but we can't. Why does the ocean exist? For a multitude of reasons. But why for those reasons. Let us take one. The ocean exists so that marine life may exist in it. why? So that man may have fish to eat. Why? Because man needs sustenance...or oil from whales, or whatever other scientific reasons one could give for not doing away with the ocean. another, the ocean exists so that an entire body of marine animals in all their various forms can provide a multitudinous amount of resources - without which resources being available and usable defeats the very purpose of its existence in the long, long run. This is so precisely because they are unintelligent. Humans, as the only rational creatures were meant to use all the other irrational creatures for they are inferior. There was a reason why man was created with an intellect, and nothing else material was. And neither does the ocean exist just to exist. It exists for our use and God's glory.
"Does a pebble rolling down a hill, or the formation of a water molecule, achieve an end? If so, where is the design detectable in such instances?"
Your proposed pebble rolling down the hill, got stuck in the spoke of a wheel of a proud Cardinal just a little outside of a village, the pebble eventually so damaged things that the wheel broke and he had to stop in the village while it was repaired. While he was stopped he was exposed to much destitution and extreme poverty. he realized how bad it was that he was proud and had a conversion, grew in sanctity, eventually became pope, reformed the Church. Now, the pebble however didn't just roll down the hill of its own accord - it was either moved by gravity, or vibration, or a very, very strong wind, etc... but all these inher in something else. That which inhers in something else, does not depend on itself for its existence. I remove myself farther and claim that God created all the things above, and motion, which allowed for the situation to happen - and the sum total of the events, from the pebble rolling to the reform of the Church was for His glory. That is the final end of all things - to glorify God. God is perfect, He is happy, He is the wisest, etc... but glory can only come from something other than itself - thus, He created everything created, which final end is for His glory.
4.Which God? The Judeo-Christian God? I make no admittance of any other
™ Version 4.2