Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28

# Do Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs Still Stand?

 Posts: 353 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 2:23:43 PMPosted: 1 year agoNot here with an answer. I'd like to hear from both sides.Although I am leaning towards yes.People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do. -Black Science Man
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PMPosted: 1 year agoFor reference:"The First Way: Argument from MotionOur 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 CausesWe 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 BeingThere 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 DesignWe 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."
 Posts: 2,742 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 3:40:08 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 4:21:57 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 2,742 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 4:36:41 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 4,116 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 4:50:29 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 2,742 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/23/2016 6:06:07 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 1,200 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/24/2016 3:16:23 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 9/23/2016 3:02:06 PM, Benshapiro wrote:For reference:"The First Way: Argument from MotionOur 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.
 Posts: 353 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/26/2016 3:33:00 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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.People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do. -Black Science Man
 Posts: 43 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/28/2016 12:48:41 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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
 Posts: 353 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/28/2016 4:37:20 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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.People don't think the universe be like it is, but it do. -Black Science Man
 Posts: 43 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 1:58:26 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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
 Posts: 4,638 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 3:42:45 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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."
 Posts: 4,638 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 3:45:30 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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."
 Posts: 4,638 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 3:46:44 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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."
 Posts: 4,638 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 3:48:24 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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."
 Posts: 3,648 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 5:22:45 AMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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 MotionOur 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:MovePotentialityActualityGoodPerfectionFrom 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.
 Posts: 5,468 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 9/29/2016 5:27:39 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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...