Marcus Tullius Cicero on Intelligent Design
Marcus Tullius Cicero, wrote the most prominent Roman treatise to advance the argument from intelligent design in: The Nature of the Gods (written in 45 BCE), where i wrote:
When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? ... Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?
Epicurus taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles known as atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. He rejected the idea that the Gods have created our world for multiple reasons.
Epicurus, in attempting to provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity, relied on an argument that transformed blind chance into contingency. Thus he adopted assumptions that not only
reduced the improbability of the world developing in its present form but made the appearance of such a world certain. This was what Epicureans called “the power of infinity” associated with the assumptions of
(1) infinite space, time, and matter;
(2) an infinite number of worlds;
(3) a mathematically smallest magnitude (so small as to be partless) that combined in precise ways with other such minimum magnitudes to form atoms (literally uncuttables);
(4) a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes;
(5) a largest possible size to a world; and
(6) the principle of isonomia, or distributive equality between like things.
As a result of these mathematical assumptions, together with the basic material postulates of Epicurean philosophy, anything possible was bound to happen in the universe at large, and anything necessary would occur in any given world. In short, a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability was used to bolster the case for a material explanation of the existing world.
“It is the specific originality of Epicurus that he is the first man known in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.” Epicurus has always had the reputation of being the atheist philosopher par excellence, and was always called a swine; for this reason, too, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul takes up arms against philosophy he has in mind Epicurean philosophy alone.
Cicero states in his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in 45 BC:
Is it possible for any man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautiful adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How therefore can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms… if a concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty?
Fast-forwarding to more modern times, it’s not actually clear who made the monkeys on typewriters producing Shakespeare version of the idea. You’ll almost universally see the original quote attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)- a 19th century biologist and comparative anatomist, who was also known as “Darwin’s bulldog” owing to his pugnacious defense of evolutionary theory.
As for the monkey/typing defense, on June 30, 1860, Huxley and Anglican Bishop, Samuel Wilberforce, held a debate, or at least that’s what popular history remembers. In fact, it was more accurate that the two were part of an open discussion at Oxford after the presentation of a paper, with the discussion featuring several prominent scientists putting forth their thoughts.
The topic of the hour was Darwin’s relatively newly minted theories and contrary to what is often said today, it would appear Bishop Wilberforce’s arguments trended more towards scientific merit, rather than religiously themed on the whole. This is unsurprising given that it wouldn’t be until much later that the whole “creation vs. evolution” battle whipped up
In any event, at some point during the discussion, Wilberforce allegedly put forth the classic argument that “a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker”- in other words such a complex system couldn’t have come about by chance. Huxley allegedly countered by stating something to the effect of:
while this is perhaps one of the most famous scientific debates in the last couple centuries, at the time, nobody bothered to well document what exactly was said. It was just a relatively friendly public scientific discussion; not exactly front page news, and nobody was sitting there scribbling down what was said. Further, most of the supposed quotes we know from it come from recollections of people a couple decades after the event, or snippets of recollections from contemporary letters.
As for the so-called Huxley vs. Wilberforce debate, it’s also noteworthy that the supposed quotes from the event are heavily biased via largely collected a couple decades later from the pro-Darwin side. Contrary to popular perception based on those accounts, the scant contemporary accounts of the event seem to lean more towards the discussion being quite genial, rather than heated, with several of the speakers explicitly walking away thinking they came out on top in the discussion. For example, Huxley would later state, he was “the most popular man in Oxford for a full four & twenty hours afterwards.” Wilberforce, on the other hand, state, ” I… had quite a long fight with Huxley. I think I thoroughly beat him.” Joseph Hooker, one of the other scientists involved in the discussion, also stated, “I have been congratulated and thanked by the blackest coats and whitest stocks in Oxford.”
Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design.
I, Epicurus see the universe as infinite and eternal. All matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles, atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. I reject the idea that Gods have created our world for multiple reasons. I provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity. Blind chance makes the creation of our world certain through the power of infinity. I assume there is infinite space, time, and matter; an infinite number of worlds; a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes; as a result of these assumptions, anything is possible and will happen in the universe at large. I propose a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability that bolsters the case for a material explanation of the existing world. I am the first man in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.
I, Marcus Tullius Cicero, have written the most prominent Roman treatise refuting Epicur, and advancing the argument from intelligent design in The Nature of the Gods, where I wrote in 45 BC:
When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? ... Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?
Cicero states in his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in 45 BC:
Is it possible for any man to behold that a world so beautiful adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How therefore can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms… if a concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty?
I , Thomas Aquinas, have also written two arguments, one, called the first way, that elucidates why the universe must have a first cause, and cannot be eternal, and in the fifth way, i present an argument from Design: The first way:
Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. And the fifth way : We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. There is motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only when potential motion exists ( the possibility to instantiate actual motion ), actual motion can be instantiated. Each thing beginning to move is moved by a cause. The sequence of motion cannot extend infinitely. Therefore, there must be a first mover, that puts motion in motion which is God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaQC1rvH1k
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/02/time-someone-actually-tested-infinite-monkey-theorem/
Marcus Tullius Cicero, wrote the most prominent Roman treatise to advance the argument from intelligent design in: The Nature of the Gods (written in 45 BCE), where i wrote:
When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? ... Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?
Epicurus taught that the universe is infinite and eternal and that all matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles known as atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. He rejected the idea that the Gods have created our world for multiple reasons.
Epicurus, in attempting to provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity, relied on an argument that transformed blind chance into contingency. Thus he adopted assumptions that not only
reduced the improbability of the world developing in its present form but made the appearance of such a world certain. This was what Epicureans called “the power of infinity” associated with the assumptions of
(1) infinite space, time, and matter;
(2) an infinite number of worlds;
(3) a mathematically smallest magnitude (so small as to be partless) that combined in precise ways with other such minimum magnitudes to form atoms (literally uncuttables);
(4) a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes;
(5) a largest possible size to a world; and
(6) the principle of isonomia, or distributive equality between like things.
As a result of these mathematical assumptions, together with the basic material postulates of Epicurean philosophy, anything possible was bound to happen in the universe at large, and anything necessary would occur in any given world. In short, a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability was used to bolster the case for a material explanation of the existing world.
“It is the specific originality of Epicurus that he is the first man known in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.” Epicurus has always had the reputation of being the atheist philosopher par excellence, and was always called a swine; for this reason, too, Clement of Alexandria says that when Paul takes up arms against philosophy he has in mind Epicurean philosophy alone.
Cicero states in his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in 45 BC:
Is it possible for any man to behold these things, and yet imagine that certain solid and individual bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, and that a world so beautiful adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How therefore can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms… if a concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty?
Fast-forwarding to more modern times, it’s not actually clear who made the monkeys on typewriters producing Shakespeare version of the idea. You’ll almost universally see the original quote attributed to Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895)- a 19th century biologist and comparative anatomist, who was also known as “Darwin’s bulldog” owing to his pugnacious defense of evolutionary theory.
As for the monkey/typing defense, on June 30, 1860, Huxley and Anglican Bishop, Samuel Wilberforce, held a debate, or at least that’s what popular history remembers. In fact, it was more accurate that the two were part of an open discussion at Oxford after the presentation of a paper, with the discussion featuring several prominent scientists putting forth their thoughts.
The topic of the hour was Darwin’s relatively newly minted theories and contrary to what is often said today, it would appear Bishop Wilberforce’s arguments trended more towards scientific merit, rather than religiously themed on the whole. This is unsurprising given that it wouldn’t be until much later that the whole “creation vs. evolution” battle whipped up
In any event, at some point during the discussion, Wilberforce allegedly put forth the classic argument that “a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker”- in other words such a complex system couldn’t have come about by chance. Huxley allegedly countered by stating something to the effect of:
while this is perhaps one of the most famous scientific debates in the last couple centuries, at the time, nobody bothered to well document what exactly was said. It was just a relatively friendly public scientific discussion; not exactly front page news, and nobody was sitting there scribbling down what was said. Further, most of the supposed quotes we know from it come from recollections of people a couple decades after the event, or snippets of recollections from contemporary letters.
As for the so-called Huxley vs. Wilberforce debate, it’s also noteworthy that the supposed quotes from the event are heavily biased via largely collected a couple decades later from the pro-Darwin side. Contrary to popular perception based on those accounts, the scant contemporary accounts of the event seem to lean more towards the discussion being quite genial, rather than heated, with several of the speakers explicitly walking away thinking they came out on top in the discussion. For example, Huxley would later state, he was “the most popular man in Oxford for a full four & twenty hours afterwards.” Wilberforce, on the other hand, state, ” I… had quite a long fight with Huxley. I think I thoroughly beat him.” Joseph Hooker, one of the other scientists involved in the discussion, also stated, “I have been congratulated and thanked by the blackest coats and whitest stocks in Oxford.”
Quotes about Infinity, Superstition, God, Intelligent Design.
I, Epicurus see the universe as infinite and eternal. All matter is made up of extremely tiny, invisible particles, atoms. All occurrences in the natural world are ultimately the result of atoms moving and interacting in empty space. I reject the idea that Gods have created our world for multiple reasons. I provide a materialist explanation of the emergence of the world in all its complexity. Blind chance makes the creation of our world certain through the power of infinity. I assume there is infinite space, time, and matter; an infinite number of worlds; a resulting finite number of possible atomic types/shapes derived from the combination of these smallest magnitudes; as a result of these assumptions, anything is possible and will happen in the universe at large. I propose a sophisticated argument of cosmic probability that bolsters the case for a material explanation of the existing world. I am the first man in history to have organized a movement for the liberation of mankind at large from superstition.
I, Marcus Tullius Cicero, have written the most prominent Roman treatise refuting Epicur, and advancing the argument from intelligent design in The Nature of the Gods, where I wrote in 45 BC:
When you follow from afar the course of a ship, upon the sea, you do not question that its movement is guided by a skilled intelligence. When you see a sundial or a water clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence? ... Our opponents however profess to be in doubt whether the universe.. .came into being by accident or by necessity or is the product of a divine intelligence.The truth is that the universe is controlled by a power and purpose which we can never imitate. When we see some example of a mechanism, such as a globe or a clock or some such device, do we doubt that it is the creation of a conscious intelligence? So when we see the movement of the heavenly bodies, the speed of their revolution, and the way in which they regularly run their annual course, so that all that depends on them is preserved and prospers, how can we doubt that these too are not only the works of reason but of a reason which is perfect and divine?
Cicero states in his De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods) in 45 BC:
Is it possible for any man to behold that a world so beautiful adorned was made by their fortuitous concourse? He who believes this may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold or any other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them. How therefore can these people assert that the world was made by the fortuitous concourse of atoms… if a concourse of atoms can make a world, why not a porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of less labour and difficulty?
I , Thomas Aquinas, have also written two arguments, one, called the first way, that elucidates why the universe must have a first cause, and cannot be eternal, and in the fifth way, i present an argument from Design: The first way:
Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. And the fifth way : We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. There is motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only when potential motion exists ( the possibility to instantiate actual motion ), actual motion can be instantiated. Each thing beginning to move is moved by a cause. The sequence of motion cannot extend infinitely. Therefore, there must be a first mover, that puts motion in motion which is God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InaQC1rvH1k
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/02/time-someone-actually-tested-infinite-monkey-theorem/
Last edited by Otangelo on Fri 20 Oct 2023 - 12:25; edited 2 times in total
