Plato v. Aquinas ; Strato v. Aristotle

 Plato in the Euthyphro argues that either God makes for morality or else it is independent of Him. If the former, then if He decides that rape is good, wood rape be good? William of Ockham  says why yes, albeit he doesn’t think that could ever happen.

 Aquinas tries to overcome this dilemma in defining His nature as good, but that begs the question of that nature. And defining it does not instantiate it!

 Aristotle argues for intent behind natural causes, finding teleology -planned outcomes- thusly. Thales of Miletus argues against that , nothing that natural causes have to be  primary in  order not to assume mythic beings at work. Strato of Lampascus, second after Aristotle of the Peripatetic Academy, and student of Aristtotle, argues also for natural  causes as the primary ones.

Thales and Strato win the argument as they understood what scientists now know: teleonomy- no- planned causes- exist behind natural ones, and  intent – teleology – planned outcomes-contradict them.

Otherwise, arises the new Omhalos argument that God makes it  look as though natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of  Nature is anodyne- uselesss- which He plans for what happens with His mysterious ways.No, science has nothing to do with that bit of obscurantism!

It looks as though my faulty mind was formed without any direction, and so it was.

 What have you to say about philosophical  naturalsim being meaning ful against supernaturalism?

To allege that supernaturalsim answers why begs the question as all teleological arguments do- fine-tuning, probability, design and from reason.

 “Logic is the bane of theists.” Fr.Griggs