Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Do Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs Still Stand?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
For reference:

"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).

Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

Predications of degree require reference to the "uttermost" case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

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."
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 3:40:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't think so. Just to criticize two:

First, the Argument of the First Cause. The argument claim that since everything that exists has a cause and is not the cause of itself, then the universe (existence itself) must have had a cause, or else an infinite regress occurs. This entails some uncaused cause, which is what we call God.

(r) This argument is self-defeating, simply because the existence of an uncaused cause refutes the core premise by admitting that something can possibly exist without a cause. Further justification is necessary to prove that God is a the excusive uncaused cause (or else the Special Pleading fallacy is committed), but if this is done, God is proven without the need for this argument. This applies to some of his other arguments, too, like the Unmoved Mover.

Second, The Argument from Degree. This argument states that since we make judgements regarding "more" and "less" (in terms of things like health, straightness, goodness), that there must be some standard by which these comparisons are made. This standard is what we call God.

(r) This is false, because judgements can be made relative to an arbitrarily selected standard. When comparing two things, one of those things is determined to be the standard in order to base a judgment on the other. For instance, I can look at two paintings and determined that one is more beautiful than the other by establishing one of them as the standard.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 4:21:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 3:40:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't think so. Just to criticize two:

First, the Argument of the First Cause. The argument claim that since everything that exists has a cause and is not the cause of itself, then the universe (existence itself) must have had a cause, or else an infinite regress occurs. This entails some uncaused cause, which is what we call God.

(r) This argument is self-defeating, simply because the existence of an uncaused cause refutes the core premise by admitting that something can possibly exist without a cause. Further justification is necessary to prove that God is a the excusive uncaused cause (or else the Special Pleading fallacy is committed), but if this is done, God is proven without the need for this argument. This applies to some of his other arguments, too, like the Unmoved Mover.

I don't think it's self-defeating because the causes in his argument only apply to contingencies.

Second, The Argument from Degree. This argument states that since we make judgements regarding "more" and "less" (in terms of things like health, straightness, goodness), that there must be some standard by which these comparisons are made. This standard is what we call God.

(r) This is false, because judgements can be made relative to an arbitrarily selected standard. When comparing two things, one of those things is determined to be the standard in order to base a judgment on the other. For instance, I can look at two paintings and determined that one is more beautiful than the other by establishing one of them as the standard.

I think the argument is only in reference to non-abitrary standards. The "straightness" of a line can only be measured relative to what's maximally straight.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 4:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 4:21:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:40:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't think so. Just to criticize two:

First, the Argument of the First Cause. The argument claim that since everything that exists has a cause and is not the cause of itself, then the universe (existence itself) must have had a cause, or else an infinite regress occurs. This entails some uncaused cause, which is what we call God.

(r) This argument is self-defeating, simply because the existence of an uncaused cause refutes the core premise by admitting that something can possibly exist without a cause. Further justification is necessary to prove that God is a the excusive uncaused cause (or else the Special Pleading fallacy is committed), but if this is done, God is proven without the need for this argument. This applies to some of his other arguments, too, like the Unmoved Mover.

I don't think it's self-defeating because the causes in his argument only apply to contingencies.

How is God not contingent, then?

Second, The Argument from Degree. This argument states that since we make judgements regarding "more" and "less" (in terms of things like health, straightness, goodness), that there must be some standard by which these comparisons are made. This standard is what we call God.

(r) This is false, because judgements can be made relative to an arbitrarily selected standard. When comparing two things, one of those things is determined to be the standard in order to base a judgment on the other. For instance, I can look at two paintings and determined that one is more beautiful than the other by establishing one of them as the standard.

I think the argument is only in reference to non-abitrary standards. The "straightness" of a line can only be measured relative to what's maximally straight.

OK. There's no reason to argue.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 4:50:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 4:36:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 4:21:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:40:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't think so. Just to criticize two:

First, the Argument of the First Cause. The argument claim that since everything that exists has a cause and is not the cause of itself, then the universe (existence itself) must have had a cause, or else an infinite regress occurs. This entails some uncaused cause, which is what we call God.

(r) This argument is self-defeating, simply because the existence of an uncaused cause refutes the core premise by admitting that something can possibly exist without a cause. Further justification is necessary to prove that God is a the excusive uncaused cause (or else the Special Pleading fallacy is committed), but if this is done, God is proven without the need for this argument. This applies to some of his other arguments, too, like the Unmoved Mover.

I don't think it's self-defeating because the causes in his argument only apply to contingencies.

How is God not contingent, then?

According to the argument, something must exist that has a non-contingent existence. An example of this would be something that exists eternally. He says that something that has non-contingent existence must be the causal origin of all contingent causes. He labels this non-contingent casual origin "God."

Second, The Argument from Degree. This argument states that since we make judgements regarding "more" and "less" (in terms of things like health, straightness, goodness), that there must be some standard by which these comparisons are made. This standard is what we call God.

(r) This is false, because judgements can be made relative to an arbitrarily selected standard. When comparing two things, one of those things is determined to be the standard in order to base a judgment on the other. For instance, I can look at two paintings and determined that one is more beautiful than the other by establishing one of them as the standard.

I think the argument is only in reference to non-abitrary standards. The "straightness" of a line can only be measured relative to what's maximally straight.

OK. There's no reason to argue.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 6:06:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 4:50:29 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/23/2016 4:36:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 4:21:57 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:40:08 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't think so. Just to criticize two:

First, the Argument of the First Cause. The argument claim that since everything that exists has a cause and is not the cause of itself, then the universe (existence itself) must have had a cause, or else an infinite regress occurs. This entails some uncaused cause, which is what we call God.

(r) This argument is self-defeating, simply because the existence of an uncaused cause refutes the core premise by admitting that something can possibly exist without a cause. Further justification is necessary to prove that God is a the excusive uncaused cause (or else the Special Pleading fallacy is committed), but if this is done, God is proven without the need for this argument. This applies to some of his other arguments, too, like the Unmoved Mover.

I don't think it's self-defeating because the causes in his argument only apply to contingencies.

How is God not contingent, then?

According to the argument, something must exist that has a non-contingent existence.

Right, and what reason does he provide for this?

An example of this would be something that exists eternally. He says that something that has non-contingent existence must be the causal origin of all contingent causes. He labels this non-contingent casual origin "God."

Second, The Argument from Degree. This argument states that since we make judgements regarding "more" and "less" (in terms of things like health, straightness, goodness), that there must be some standard by which these comparisons are made. This standard is what we call God.

(r) This is false, because judgements can be made relative to an arbitrarily selected standard. When comparing two things, one of those things is determined to be the standard in order to base a judgment on the other. For instance, I can look at two paintings and determined that one is more beautiful than the other by establishing one of them as the standard.

I think the argument is only in reference to non-abitrary standards. The "straightness" of a line can only be measured relative to what's maximally straight.

OK. There's no reason to argue.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.
David_Debates
Posts: 261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
David_Debates
Posts: 261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.
mcc1789
Posts: 43
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:42:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.

Here you go:
http://dhspriory.org...

I mean, he argues in many places why the unmoved mover/uncaused cause has all the qualities of God. You can't understand the arguments without understanding his metaphysics, in which case you'd understand better why the thing his arguments prove is something like God.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:45:30 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.

For example, Aquinas argues that God is good, because he is pure actuality. Imperfection implies potentiality. Potentiality is a necessary condition for imperfection. Unmoved mover has no potentiality thus it is perfect.

Ultimately though, I do not know how Aquinas argues in favor of Christianity specifically if that's what you're asking.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:46:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't know. I used to think they were, but it rests upon accepting his entire metaphysics... which I am inclined to do, but have mixed feelings about. I'm an engineer, and he doesn't really show where math/science fits into his worldview...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 3:48:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

Btw I did a debate on this topic:

http://www.debate.org...

If anyone can address my objections, I'd love to hear them refuted.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:22:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:45:30 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.

For example, Aquinas argues that God is good, because he is pure actuality. Imperfection implies potentiality. Potentiality is a necessary condition for imperfection. Unmoved mover has no potentiality thus it is perfect.

Ultimately though, I do not know how Aquinas argues in favor of Christianity specifically if that's what you're asking.

As far as I understand, the following concepts have very specific definitions within his metaphysics:
Move
Potentiality
Actuality
Good
Perfection

From what you said above. I personally would have no idea what you were talking about until I knew when he meant by those, and because you need to understand (and accept) his metaphysics to understand his arguments for God, they make for pretty rubbish arguments in a debate context. The advocate at best can only get a half-baked argument out by time they lay out the framework, and most of the time it is left out and people are left using colloquial associations to fill in the gaps, which give a outright wrong version argument in their heads.

The person rebutting might think he is responding to the argument, but because the concepts hasn't been explained to him/her, they are going to end up talking past each other.

... Much like Ben's responses at the start of this thread.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 5:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 3:46:44 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't know. I used to think they were, but it rests upon accepting his entire metaphysics... which I am inclined to do, but have mixed feelings about. I'm an engineer, and he doesn't really show where math/science fits into his worldview...

Wouldn't that be because math and science as pure individual pursuits as we now understand them really didn't exist at the time?

The "physical" sciences were considered inferior to the "spiritual" sciences etc... just as the physical was considered inferior to the spiritual.

I'd be interested to hear why you would think that math/science would have an effect on his arguments...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:22:45 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:45:30 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.

For example, Aquinas argues that God is good, because he is pure actuality. Imperfection implies potentiality. Potentiality is a necessary condition for imperfection. Unmoved mover has no potentiality thus it is perfect.

Ultimately though, I do not know how Aquinas argues in favor of Christianity specifically if that's what you're asking.

As far as I understand, the following concepts have very specific definitions within his metaphysics:
Move
Potentiality
Actuality
Good
Perfection

From what you said above. I personally would have no idea what you were talking about until I knew when he meant by those, and because you need to understand (and accept) his metaphysics to understand his arguments for God, they make for pretty rubbish arguments in a debate context. The advocate at best can only get a half-baked argument out by time they lay out the framework, and most of the time it is left out and people are left using colloquial associations to fill in the gaps, which give a outright wrong version argument in their heads.

The person rebutting might think he is responding to the argument, but because the concepts hasn't been explained to him/her, they are going to end up talking past each other.

... Much like Ben's responses at the start of this thread.

Exactly. His arguments dont work in debate. You'd have to prove all his metaphysics first... which is literally impossible in the character space.

And, if you accept his metaphysics, his arguments make sense... to me at least. The question is whether or not you accept his metaphysics, which I'm not sure i do.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:31:17 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 5:27:39 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 9/29/2016 3:46:44 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PM, David_Debates wrote:
Not here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.

Although I am leaning towards yes.

I don't know. I used to think they were, but it rests upon accepting his entire metaphysics... which I am inclined to do, but have mixed feelings about. I'm an engineer, and he doesn't really show where math/science fits into his worldview...

Wouldn't that be because math and science as pure individual pursuits as we now understand them really didn't exist at the time?

Agreed.


The "physical" sciences were considered inferior to the "spiritual" sciences etc... just as the physical was considered inferior to the spiritual.

Yep.


I'd be interested to hear why you would think that math/science would have an effect on his arguments...

First off, I'm a bit iffy on forms in general. I don't see how there can actually be an inherent "tree-ness." It seems there would be an infinite amount of forms... and what about when something is half way in between what we consider two forms?

Also, some quantum physics seems to end up being almost metaphysical. To be honest, I'm not sure how to see such a distinction between math/philosophy. They're both very abstract. Math ultimately seems to be more of a tool we use to understand the world than in the world itself. Which makes me wonder if the whole "science" is the way of knowledge is fundamentally flawed. The more science courses I take, the more I think that the world is ultimately very much non-deterministic, and can't be explained mathematically. Especially when quantum physics is thrown into it.

Mathematics seems to be able to be applied to the world on a large scale, but fundamentally impossible to apply deterministically to the world on a small scale. So that seems to imply that mathematics is not inherent in the world.

For me at least, science has utterly destroyed my reassurance that we can have definite knowledge of the world around us.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
David_Debates
Posts: 261
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2016 6:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AM, mcc1789 wrote:
At 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
For reference:


"The First Way: Argument from Motion

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.

When Thomas talks about what is "moved" what he really has in mind is some conception of Potential A, becoming an Actual A, if I understand it. This is why I already don't like this argument, cause it uses words in such a way that most people wouldn't understand it.

I'll agree with you there, the vocabulary that he uses is quite complicated at times. But I feel as though it is necessary to use those words, don't you think? If he didn't make the distinction between potentialities and actualities his argument would hold no water.

When people think move they think like moving an objection from place A to place B, not something along the lines of actuality vs potentiality.

Agreed. But this doesn't make his argument invalid, does it? Simply that that is not the most common use of the terms?

"Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect"

Why not ?

Take the example of a log. It is potentially hot, because it can be lit on fire. But it is not actually hot because it has not been ignited. However, once that log is set on fire, it is now actually hot, not potentially hot. It cannot be both potentially on fire and actually on fire at the same time.

"The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum."

Why not ? this isn't a first cause argument which is based on the rejection of an infinite chain of temporal causes.

Well, from what I understand, essentially what he argues is that there can't be an infinite amount of movers. After all, he claims, the physical realm must have started at some point. Thus, there must be a first cause, what created the physical realm.

I think my problem is mostly with the conclusion to these. How does he decide the first cause, unmoved mover are a god, let alone his god? What precludes it from being an unintelligent source, or multiple intelligent sources (polytheism)?

Well, this proof is used to prove that there is a unmoved mover, not that the Christian God exists. So this first proof isn't to prove the identity of the unmoved mover as the Christian God, but to show that one exists.

I get that, but how does it prove that this unmoved mover is a god at all? Aquinas simply appears to assert this and appeal to majority opinion, both of which are fallacious arguments.

That seems to come from his 5th proof, the proof where he explains purpose.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change,
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 3:11:34 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change. :
I am not assuming the universe is not simple, but Aquinas's proofs have no sway over me personally. They are circular in the fact they state there must be a first mover and that is God; similar for other arguments. What makes them circular is there are two assumption that there is a first mover and a first mover must be God. If there is no first mover, does it prove God doesn't exist and could there be a first mover other than God? I don't think it is using good reason to assume God and then use that assumption to prove its existence. For this reason even if there is God this argument proves nothing.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2016 11:29:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 3:11:34 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change. :
I am not assuming the universe is not simple, but Aquinas's proofs have no sway over me personally. They are circular in the fact they state there must be a first mover and that is God; similar for other arguments. What makes them circular is there are two assumption that there is a first mover and a first mover must be God. If there is no first mover, does it prove God doesn't exist and could there be a first mover other than God? I don't think it is using good reason to assume God and then use that assumption to prove its existence. For this reason even if there is God this argument proves nothing.
They aren't circular. "If there is No first mover" than the laws of inertia and motion no longer exist as science. However, their premises are faith based and exploit scientific terminology while injecting humanities history of concepts. You sound like one of those undereducated people who think they can revisit human history and somehow find a justification for coming up with a word besides God to fit the reasoning. "Could there be a first mover besides god" was clearly explained to you as resulting in a homunculus fallacy and you still hold on to this pie in the sky assertion that all of humanity has missed the one concept that you somehow possess and the rest of us have missed....hint, you haven't.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 4:15:17 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/5/2016 11:29:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:11:34 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change. :
I am not assuming the universe is not simple, but Aquinas's proofs have no sway over me personally. They are circular in the fact they state there must be a first mover and that is God; similar for other arguments. What makes them circular is there are two assumption that there is a first mover and a first mover must be God. If there is no first mover, does it prove God doesn't exist and could there be a first mover other than God? I don't think it is using good reason to assume God and then use that assumption to prove its existence. For this reason even if there is God this argument proves nothing.
They aren't circular. "If there is No first mover" than the laws of inertia and motion no longer exist as science. However, their premises are faith based and exploit scientific terminology while injecting humanities history of concepts. You sound like one of those undereducated people who think they can revisit human history and somehow find a justification for coming up with a word besides God to fit the reasoning. "Could there be a first mover besides god" was clearly explained to you as resulting in a homunculus fallacy and you still hold on to this pie in the sky assertion that all of humanity has missed the one concept that you somehow possess and the rest of us have missed....hint, you haven't.

Let me break down the first mover argument for you and you can decide for yourself.

Things are in motion
They couldn't always have been in motion
There must have been a first mover
Only God can create a first motion
Therefore there is God

P1 I have no argument; it would indubitably appear things are in motion
P2 This premise I personally accept to be false as I believe things were always in motion, although it could be true
P3 This is not a logical necessity as there could be a first movement with nothing to move it
P4 If you have read Aquinas, God is an omnipotent, all good, omniscient, all loving being.
I do not see how it is logically necessary for a perfect, let alone intelligent being to have cast the first stone

C Is certainly not logically unavoidable

I have to point out also the incredibly ignorant viewpoint you subscribe to;: You assume A I am to uneducated to fully grasp Aquinas's thought, B I've never thought about these topics before, C no one has ever thought about these things and disagreed with Aquinas, D that I am someone who subscribes to what would be considered a materialist viewpoint and E that I uphold science above faith.

I am actually someone who has a. BA in philosophy and have actually read the Summa Theological in addition to having conversations on the subject with people I consider very bright. I am not a Christian, but do not place my faith in science.

Finally God is not a word, but a concept; you can call anything anything but it does not take the essence of that thing away. You can call the first mover, if there is one, God, but that does not make it so.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 7:13:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 4:15:17 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 11:29:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:11:34 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change. :
I am not assuming the universe is not simple, but Aquinas's proofs have no sway over me personally. They are circular in the fact they state there must be a first mover and that is God; similar for other arguments. What makes them circular is there are two assumption that there is a first mover and a first mover must be God. If there is no first mover, does it prove God doesn't exist and could there be a first mover other than God? I don't think it is using good reason to assume God and then use that assumption to prove its existence. For this reason even if there is God this argument proves nothing.
They aren't circular. "If there is No first mover" than the laws of inertia and motion no longer exist as science. However, their premises are faith based and exploit scientific terminology while injecting humanities history of concepts. You sound like one of those undereducated people who think they can revisit human history and somehow find a justification for coming up with a word besides God to fit the reasoning. "Could there be a first mover besides god" was clearly explained to you as resulting in a homunculus fallacy and you still hold on to this pie in the sky assertion that all of humanity has missed the one concept that you somehow possess and the rest of us have missed....hint, you haven't.

Let me break down the first mover argument for you and you can decide for yourself.

Things are in motion
They couldn't always have been in motion
There must have been a first mover
Only God can create a first motion
Therefore there is God

P1 I have no argument; it would indubitably appear things are in motion
P2 This premise I personally accept to be false as I believe things were always in motion, although it could be true
Problem here is by definition you need two things for motion to exist. Hence you believe there wasn't a singularity. That's a perfectly acceptable belief because it's called creationism.
P3 This is not a logical necessity as there could be a first movement with nothing to move it
Prove it. By definition there has to be two things for motion to exist and something has to be put in motion for it to start moving. This is simply an observation that everyone who has been in a first grade science class was taught.
P4 If you have read Aquinas, God is an omnipotent, all good, omniscient, all loving being.
I do not see how it is logically necessary for a perfect, let alone intelligent being to have cast the first stone
That is your problem. You don't see logic, period. If you did you would make a logical argument how one single thing can have motion. Hint, it can't.
C Is certainly not logically unavoidable

I have to point out also the incredibly ignorant viewpoint you subscribe to;: You assume A I am to uneducated to fully grasp Aquinas's thought, B I've never thought about these topics before, C no one has ever thought about these things and disagreed with Aquinas, D that I am someone who subscribes to what would be considered a materialist viewpoint and E that I uphold science above faith.

I am actually someone who has a. BA in philosophy and have actually read the Summa Theological in addition to having conversations on the subject with people I consider very bright. I am not a Christian, but do not place my faith in science.

Finally God is not a word, but a concept; you can call anything anything but it does not take the essence of that thing away. You can call the first mover, if there is one, God, but that does not make it so.
You are a perfect example of someone who thinks education equals logical competence. The logic of saying or concluding God uses human history as its "logical groundwork". You use semantics. I'll go with what humans have in a long history of writings. In two thousand years when your introduced semantic avoidance becomes the normal logical conclusion I will give it as much credence as it deserves.
Philosophy101
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2016 9:47:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/7/2016 7:13:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/7/2016 4:15:17 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 11:29:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 3:11:34 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
At 10/5/2016 1:01:33 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 10/5/2016 12:14:58 AM, Philosophy101 wrote:
I find these arguments to be very circular; There had to be a first mover and the first mover is God. If there is a first mover and the first mover is God then these proofs still prove nothing. What if the universe is eternal, would that mean God is pantheistic? Or if one atom is eternal, is that God? Similarly if the first mover was an alien from another universe, then God isn't necessarily the first mover. Furthermore with the rigors of science, we may find there is an underlying cause to the universe that is nonintelligent. I believe there is the possibility of an omniscient entity, but these proofs do nothing to convince me of a Christian god.
What if the universe is eternal, simple, science is invalid. Alien from another universe is illogical and results in an infinite regress arguement. We may find that science is ignorance wrapped in semantics, if, if, if... they do not specify a Christian God and it's irrelevant if Aquinas subscribed to a Christian God, his arguments are valid as far as current human concepts, which of course are subject to change. :
I am not assuming the universe is not simple, but Aquinas's proofs have no sway over me personally. They are circular in the fact they state there must be a first mover and that is God; similar for other arguments. What makes them circular is there are two assumption that there is a first mover and a first mover must be God. If there is no first mover, does it prove God doesn't exist and could there be a first mover other than God? I don't think it is using good reason to assume God and then use that assumption to prove its existence. For this reason even if there is God this argument proves nothing.
They aren't circular. "If there is No first mover" than the laws of inertia and motion no longer exist as science. However, their premises are faith based and exploit scientific terminology while injecting humanities history of concepts. You sound like one of those undereducated people who think they can revisit human history and somehow find a justification for coming up with a word besides God to fit the reasoning. "Could there be a first mover besides god" was clearly explained to you as resulting in a homunculus fallacy and you still hold on to this pie in the sky assertion that all of humanity has missed the one concept that you somehow possess and the rest of us have missed....hint, you haven't.

Let me break down the first mover argument for you and you can decide for yourself.

Things are in motion
They couldn't always have been in motion
There must have been a first mover
Only God can create a first motion
Therefore there is God

P1 I have no argument; it would indubitably appear things are in motion
P2 This premise I personally accept to be false as I believe things were always in motion, although it could be true
Problem here is by definition you need two things for motion to exist. Hence you believe there wasn't a singularity. That's a perfectly acceptable belief because it's called creationism.
So no belief is correct unless it's creationism, which I assure you I did not argue for.
P3 This is not a logical necessity as there could be a first movement with nothing to move it
Prove it. By definition there has to be two things for motion to exist and something has to be put in motion for it to start moving. This is simply an observation that everyone who has been in a first grade science class was taught.
And how would you expect me to prove this exactly. If you took first grade science, as you call it, there would simply have to be two things beginning movement in opposite directions.
P4 If you have read Aquinas, God is an omnipotent, all good, omniscient, all loving being.
I do not see how it is logically necessary for a perfect, let alone intelligent being to have cast the first stone
That is your problem. You don't see logic, period. If you did you would make a logical argument how one single thing can have motion. Hint, it can't.
C Is certainly not logically unavoidable

I have to point out also the incredibly ignorant viewpoint you subscribe to;: You assume A I am to uneducated to fully grasp Aquinas's thought, B I've never thought about these topics before, C no one has ever thought about these things and disagreed with Aquinas, D that I am someone who subscribes to what would be considered a materialist viewpoint and E that I uphold science above faith.

I am actually someone who has a. BA in philosophy and have actually read the Summa Theological in addition to having conversations on the subject with people I consider very bright. I am not a Christian, but do not place my faith in science.

Finally God is not a word, but a concept; you can call anything anything but it does not take the essence of that thing away. You can call the first mover, if there is one, God, but that does not make it so.
You are a perfect example of someone who thinks education equals logical competence. The logic of saying or concluding God uses human history as its "logical groundwork". You use semantics. I'll go with what humans have in a long history of writings. In two thousand years when your introduced semantic avoidance becomes the normal logical conclusion I will give it as much credence as it deserves.

Nothing about my argument is semantically; you are the poor thinker by thinking that a continuous barrage of ad hominem attacks is worth silver dollars. You are actually just an idiot who thinks of himself too highly. Get off your pedastool and think about things for a change. You can keep arguing, but I'm done.