A closer look at the first way

  • Thread starter Thread starter AndyT_81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Candide_West said:
The problem you immediately run into there of course is that once you have eliminated observation you then have nothing upon which to base your metaphysical statements.*

For example the statement “every change has a cause” was based on observation of causality. If you say that you are not talking about physical causes then on what do you base the statement? Nothing, it becomes an assumption and one which does not conform with our observations at that.

Now if you’re happy for metaphysics to be divorced from reality then of course this isn’t a problem. The snag comes when you try to use truths that you’ve discerned using metaphysics to tell you things about reality.
Click to expand...
Your claim that metaphysics is based on nothing is evidently false to anybody who understands the basis of metaphysical knowledge and merely makes it apparent your failure to understand the epistemological grounds of both metaphysics and science; not to mention the distinction between scientific claims and metaphysical claims.

Firstly, that metaphysics isn’t based on an observation of what we experience, is false; I have not said any such thing. However, my claim that everything has a cause is certainly not based on the inferences of the scientific method and neither does it have to be any more than I need the scientific method to tell me that I exist. Science merely describes “particularities” and their functional causes; and because its form of epistemology is limited by its method it is necessary for scientists to prove their hypothesis through empirical analysis. This is not true for metaphysics, since as I have said metaphysics does not focus on particularities and neither does it describe the particular functionalities of physical natures, but rather its knowledge is formed on the basis of general truths that are required in-order for any form of rational knowledge to be possible.

The scientific method can still function without metaphysics, but it functions blindly, because insofar as epistemology is concerned science becomes fundamentally a non-rational tautological activity as soon as it fails to recognise or abandons rational distinctions between things for mere observation alone; since all true inferential knowledge begins with rational distinctions, not just observation alone.

Metaphysics observes these distinctions insofar as they self evidently apply to reality holistically and objectively. That all potential possibilities must have a cause in-order to become actual, is simply the recognition of the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. That out of nothing comes nothing is further based on the fundamental distinction between an existential act and no act at all. You cannot use scientific observations to disprove this claim, and neither can you claim that we cannot know this without the empirical method, since the claim itself intrinsically involves rational distinctions that are necessary in-order for all true inferential knowledge to be possible and not tautological. Scientific inferences would be tautological, circular, and no better than myth making or opinions if its inferences did not fundamentally involve the understanding that there is rational objective distinctions between things or natures, being and not being, act and no act, change and no change, potentiality and actuality.

The claim that all potential beings must have a cause in order to be actualities is based on a metaphysical form of epistemology which I have explained. You have not addressed these facts; but rather you have ignored them. By doing so you render all inferential knowledge impossible including science.

Your argument is self defeating and circular.
 
Candide_West said:
Incidentally it is worth noting that we have determined that quantum events have no hidden variables behind them.
Click to expand...
No “hidden physical cause”. This is what science has legitimately revealed. Scientists have not and cannot make the further claim that there is no kind of cause whatsoever for its existence. This is not a legitimate inference given the epistemological context of science. They have no scientific basis for saying that it is the cause of its own reality or change. The scientific method has no way of measuring such a claim. Your further inference that there is no kind of cause at all as if it came out of nothing and that if there is a cause it must be non-deterministic is not reflective of any evidence and is purely a philosophical claim for which you have provided nothing in the way of proving your conjecture; philosophically or otherwise. Your statement is irrational philosophically speaking and non-scientific insofar as the empirical method is concerned.

Your claims are pseudo-science at best.

Your statement again exposes your fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to the epistemology of science and the context in which it operates.
 
So far none of the objectors have indicated they have availed themselves of the sources which I have given. Takes work I know, not quite as much fun as throwing rocks. Still, there it is. A lot of objections have been raised, doesn’t mean a thing, doesn’t shake me a bit, nor should it shake anyone else. If any of the objectors are really interested in finding the truth I would be glad to help, but I’m finished playing silly games.:tiphat:
 
Linusthe2nd said:
So far none of the objectors have indicated they have availed themselves of the sources which I have given. Takes work I know, not quite as much fun as throwing rocks. Still, there it is. A lot of objections have been raised, doesn’t mean a thing, doesn’t shake me a bit, nor should it shake anyone else. If any of the objectors are really interested in finding the truth I would be glad to help, but I’m finished playing silly games.:tiphat:
Click to expand...
Just to be clear you aren’t referring to me here are you? Because if so then the only sources you suggested to me we’re ones you specifically said could NOT answer the objection.

I’m still hoping for further discussion with you on this topic. You seemed quite confident you could present an argument which shows the first cause in Aquinas’s first way to be a personal being. Thus far this gap remains unfilled.*

If you have any arguments which you feel could make progress towards this then I’d be very interested to discuss. If not then thanks for the discussion and I wish you all the best.*
 
Candide_West said:
Just to be clear you aren’t referring to me here are you? Because if so then the only sources you suggested to me we’re ones you specifically said could NOT answer the objection.

I’m still hoping for further discussion with you on this topic. You seemed quite confident you could present an argument which shows the first cause in Aquinas’s first way to be a personal being. Thus far this gap remains unfilled.*

If you have any arguments which you feel could make progress towards this then I’d be very interested to discuss. If not then thanks for the discussion and I wish you all the best.*
Click to expand...
No Candide I don’t think you will be convinced by anything and I’m not going to spend gobs of time trying to find something. St. Thomas said himself and the Church has agreed that some people are not open to reasonable arguments. However you might read " The Last Superstition " by Edward Feser ( but skip pg 146 which I think suitable only for Doctors and Nurses).

As I said before, you can raise all the objections you want. That doesn’t mean anything. I and others have offered reasonable arguments, you won’t accept them. That does not mean the arguments are no good, they are good enough for many, but many will not accept them. Some times they cannot see, some times they don’t want to see because they do not want God to exist, they do not want to allow the idea to exist that there may be a higher moral authority than their own personal wants and desires. Some like Bertrand Russel ( dirty Birtie as we used to call him) will go to their graves rejecting the fact of God’s existence and/or that human reason can demonstrate His existence.

🤷
 
Philosophers say all the time that the cosmological God proven by Aquinas cannot be synonymous with the personal God.

Of course, for them to say this they have to completely ignore massive portions of Aquinas’s work, since he spent pages and pages explaining the specific qualities of the God proven in the Five Ways.

It staggers me how people just assume that Aquinas proved God’s existence and stopped there. You really don’t think he knew this would come up as an objection?

Of COURSE he knew that it would, so he spent a significant chunk of the Summa Theologica dealing with the qualities such a God would have! But people act as if he proved God’s existence and stopped there. It amazes me how they manage to close their eyes to the majority of Aquinas’s work…they just act like it doesn’t exist.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
No Candide I don’t think you will be convinced by anything and I’m not going to spend gobs of time trying to find something. St. Thomas said himself and the Church has agreed that some people are not open to reasonable arguments.
Click to expand...
Er, ok, but I ** am ** open to reasoned arguments, you’ve provided some and we’ve discussed their failings. You even said yourself they were badly stated, if you’d like to have a go at restating them then I’m more than happy to discuss. If you aren’t interested any more or don’t have the time then fair enough, but to imply I’m not open to reasonable arguments is a bit off.
However you might read " The Last Superstition " by Edward Feser ( but skip pg 146 which I think suitable only for Doctors and Nurses).
Click to expand...
No worries, it’s on my reading list, but there an number of other books above it I’m afraid. I’m reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis at the moment (an earlier recommendation from this site).
As I said before, you can raise all the objections you want. That doesn’t mean anything. I and others have offered reasonable arguments, you won’t accept them. That does not mean the arguments are no good, they are good enough for many, but many will not accept them.
Click to expand...
And I have replied to your arguments identifying their failings. This is how reasoned discussion generally proceeds (in my experience at least). Thus far my original objection still stands because your arguments to answer it fail (for the reasons I provided). This does NOT mean that I would reject a solid argument to answer the gap if you or someone else provides one.
*Some times they cannot see, some times they don’t want to see because they do not want God to exist, they do not want to allow the idea to exist that there may be a higher moral authority than their own personal wants and desires. Some like Bertrand Russel ( dirty Birtie as we used to call him) will go to their graves rejecting the fact of God’s existence and/or that human reason can demonstrate His existence.
Click to expand...
Come now, this is nothing to do with wanting or not wanting a god to exist. This is about a gap in Aquinas’s “proofs” a gap which (thus far at least) remains unfilled.*
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Philosophers say all the time that the cosmological God proven by Aquinas cannot be synonymous with the personal God.

Of course, for them to say this they have to completely ignore massive portions of Aquinas’s work, since he spent pages and pages explaining the specific qualities of the God proven in the Five Ways.

It staggers me how people just assume that Aquinas proved God’s existence and stopped there. You really don’t think he knew this would come up as an objection?

Of COURSE he knew that it would, so he spent a significant chunk of the Summa Theologica dealing with the qualities such a God would have! But people act as if he proved God’s existence and stopped there. It amazes me how they manage to close their eyes to the majority of Aquinas’s work…they just act like it doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Ok great, then could you provide an argument that shows the Prime Mover in Aquinas’s arguments is a “personal being”?

Thanks
 
Candide_West said:
Ok… Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate what part of the text in that post you are proposing to be an argument that shows the Prime Mover in Aquinas’s arguments is a “personal being”?

Because there doesn’t appear to be anything of that nature in the post as far as I can tell. Indeed the words “personal being” do not even appear anywhere in the text.
Click to expand...
I would suggest “How God is known by us” and “The names of God”, the two final sections bolded.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
I would suggest “How God is known by us” and “The names of God”, the two final sections bolded.
Click to expand...
Sorry but what you’ve written there aren’t arguments, at best they are bald assertions, but even as such they do not succeed because you have not even asserted that god is a “personal being” in that post.

Perhaps I’m missing something here?
 
Candide_West said:
Sorry but what you’ve written there aren’t arguments, at best they are bald assertions, but even as such they do not succeed because you have not even asserted that god is a “personal being” in that post.

Perhaps I’m missing something here?
Click to expand...
Those are two sections inside the Summa where he tries to explain how God is known by us and the names of God. Of course they’re bald assertations; they’re not the actual arguments, they’re just telling you that if you go to the sections indicated the arguments are there.

“How God is known by us” seems pretty obvious to me. It’s about how God interacts with humanity.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Those are two sections inside the Summa where he tries to explain how God is known by us and the names of God. Of course they’re bald assertations; they’re not the actual arguments, they’re just telling you that if you go to the sections indicated the arguments are there.

“How God is known by us” seems pretty obvious to me. It’s about how God interacts with humanity.
Click to expand...
Er, ok. So would you like to post an argument which you think shows that the Prime Mover is a personal being then?

The current position is that you seem to believe that Aquinas showed that the prime mover must be a personal being and I have never yet seen an argument which achieves this. If you believe you have one, then great, I’d like to see it and possibly discuss it please.
 
Candide_West said:
Er, ok. So would you like to post an argument which you think shows that the Prime Mover is a personal being then?

The current position is that you seem to believe that Aquinas showed that the prime mover must be a personal being and I have never yet seen an argument which achieves this. If you believe you have one, then great, I’d like to see it and possibly discuss it please.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Read the arguments! The entire Summa is online.

EDIT: God loves all things newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm

He is just and merciful: newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm

He has will and can will things apart from Himself: newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Are you serious? Read the arguments! The entire Summa is online.
Click to expand...
But which arguments? The Summa is rather a large document, and I don’t know of any way to locate the one you are referring to other than asking you.Wouldn’t it be rather more sensible for you to quote or provide a link to the relevant section of text since you are the one who is saying that it is covered?
EDIT: God loves all things newadvent.org/summa/1020.htm
Click to expand...
He is just and merciful: newadvent.org/summa/1021.htm
Click to expand...
He has will and can will things apart from Himself: newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm
Click to expand...
But none of those argue that the Prime Mover is a personal being. In fact in each of them Aquinas seems to have assumed personal being a priori.*

Perhaps you are referring to an argument preceding these three which shows this to be true?*
 
Candide_West said:
But which arguments? The Summa is rather a large document, and I don’t know of any way to locate the one you are referring to other than asking you.Wouldn’t it be rather more sensible for you to quote or provide a link to the relevant section of text since you are the one who is saying that it is covered?

But none of those argue that the Prime Mover is a personal being. In fact in each of them Aquinas seems to have assumed personal being a priori.*

Perhaps you are referring to an argument preceding these three which shows this to be true?*
Click to expand...
Okay the, please define personal being.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
Hmmm, okay, why do you think what we’ll call the “Cosmological God” isn’t capable of that?
Click to expand...
Er “Cosmological God”??? Not sure what you mean by that, but I’ll guess at the moment that you are referring to the Prime Mover as demonstrated by Aquinas (please correct me if you mean something else). In which case - I’m not arguing the the Prime Mover COULDN’T be a personal being, what I’m saying is that thus far I have no reason to think that the Prime Mover IS a personal being (because Aquinas skips that argument).

The shortfall I identified in the Prime Mover argument is that Aquinas happily calls the Prime Mover “God” but doesn’t bother to even show that the Prime Mover is a personal being. He just assumes it, but that assumption skips over the entire meat of the argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top