"Any amateur atheist would easily debunk it"

[snarflemike]

I ran across this statement in another thread on this forum. The “it” is Aquinas’ Five Ways, as best I can determine.

So is this statement true, or is it bluster? Please elaborate.

BTW, as I ask various questions in this forum, please don’t think, as some responders have, that my own faith is weak or wavering. I pursue these questions because I find them enlightening, and hope others will also.

 

[JDaniel]

I ran across this statement in another thread on this forum. The “it” is Aquinas’ Five Ways, as best I can determine.

So is this statement true, or is it bluster? Please elaborate.

BTW, as I ask various questions in this forum, please don’t think, as some responders have, that my own faith is weak or wavering. I pursue these questions because I find them enlightening, and hope others will also.

Mike:

Not a chance. It’s unadulterated “bluster.” These fora are filled with refutations proving that, all of which are too lengthy to re-print again. Give me an example of one, and we’ll have a go at it. 9,999.99 times out of a thousand, the arguer does not know anything more than a cursory idea of the proofs.

God bless,
jd

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Mike:

Not a chance. It’s unadulterated “bluster.” These fora are filled with refutations proving that, all of which are too lengthy to re-print again. Give me an example of one, and we’ll have a go at it. 9,999.99 times out of a thousand, the arguer does not know anything more than a cursory idea of the proofs.

God bless,
jd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I ran across this statement in another thread on this forum. The “it” is Aquinas’ Five Ways, as best I can determine.

So is this statement true, or is it bluster? Please elaborate.

BTW, as I ask various questions in this forum, please don’t think, as some responders have, that my own faith is weak or wavering. I pursue these questions because I find them enlightening, and hope others will also.

" Amature " athiests rate themselves a little too highly. In fact the whole Athiest movement rates itself a little too highly. Thomas’s Five Ways are valid enough but you really can’t understand them rightly unless you are a pretty good Scholastic Philosopher. And of course you don’t have to accept them if you don’t see anything in them, but don’t take the athiests’ word just because they are huffing and puffing. By the way you can read the Summa on line here newadvent.org/summa/ By the way there plenty of good reasons for faith without them, all of them valid, none of which the athiest would accept.

Thomas was writing for students who were studing for the professions, mostly to be priests or lawyers and they all knew a lot of philosophy - unlike today.

By the way. There is a great little book " The Last Superstition " by Edward Feser ( $17 bucks paper back ) which just destroys and debunks these militant athiest and also gives an excellent defence of Thomas. It isn’t easy reading, you will have to put the thinking cap on. Just skip pg 146, believe me, it is just suitable for Doctors or Nurses.

Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? It’s right here vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Be an informed Catholic and Practice your faith.

 

[Guernica]

“Any amateur atheist would easily debunk it”

An “amateur atheist” as opposed to a professional one?

Since when did atheist become a job description? (Well, I know that Percy Shelley used to list his profession in hotel registers as atheist, but I think he was trying to make a point.)

 

[Hokomai]

I am no professional, but I have been thinking about these so-called proofs since they were first ‘explained’ to me at the age of 15 in 1970. At first I thought I did not understand them because I did not know enough, and that I found them unconvincing only because of my ignorance. Now I realise that they are unconvincing because they fail to convince - and they do so so universally that I have, despite searching, failed to find anyone who has been convinced by them. They are simply plays on the meaning of words, and use false premises such as ‘everything requires a mover to mover’.

 

[Katholish]

I think that a couple of Thomas’s proofs don’t really work, but a couple are quite strong. For me, the proof form causality is the strongest. Thomas’s proofs are not dogma though. If one or more is disproved, they are not the only existing proofs or only possible proofs.

 

[Hokomai]

I think that a couple of Thomas’s proofs don’t really work, but a couple are quite strong. For me, the proof form causality is the strongest. Thomas’s proofs are not dogma though. If one or more is disproved, they are not the only existing proofs or only possible proofs.

Here’s what St Thomas said:

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause—which all call God.
To accept this you must accept that there are things, independent of all but their own cause, that there are causes, which create things, and that it is somehow impossible for everything to ultimately result from a thing which always existed, unless that thing is God. Why can’t there simply be interacting things forever, and periodically bringing forth other things? To test the strength of this argument - take it out to some people who do not believe in God and explain it to them. See if it is, in fact, convincing. In my experience it convinces people who already believe in God, not those who do not. It is therefore, empirically, a non-proof, since proofs must prove to be proofs. Now I’m upset. My brain is full of philosophy. I will watch the synchronized swimming at the Olympics for a while to defragment it.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I am no professional, but I have been thinking about these so-called proofs since they were first ‘explained’ to me at the age of 15 in 1970. At first I thought I did not understand them because I did not know enough, and that I found them unconvincing only because of my ignorance. Now I realise that they are unconvincing because they fail to convince - and they do so so universally that I have, despite searching, failed to find anyone who has been convinced by them. They are simply plays on the meaning of words, and use false premises such as ‘everything requires a mover to mover’.

You haven’t looked hard enough for conversion stories then. Dr. Edward Feser (who I suggest you w-mail, and this is not as a challenge-I just e-mailed him this morning and he already got back to me ) was converted by the Five Ways. He recently put his conversion story online. This also answers your challenge of finding a person who doesn’t believe in God and who became converted by the proofs.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html

A relevant snippet:

…The only reason for not taking Aquinas and similar thinkers seriously seemed to be that most other academic philosophers weren’t taking them seriously. And yet as I had come to learn, many of them didn’t even understand Aquinas and Co. in the first place, and their own naturalism was riddled with problems. Against Aquinas, for naturalism – the case increasingly seemed to come down to the consensus of the profession. And what exactly was that worth?

…

I don’t know exactly when everything clicked. There was no single event, but a gradual transformation. As I taught and thought about the arguments for God’s existence, and in particular the cosmological argument, I went from thinking “These arguments are no good” to thinking “These arguments are a little better than they are given credit for” and then to “These arguments are actually kind of interesting.” Eventually it hit me: “Oh my goodness, these arguments are right after all!”

As for your argument that it doesn’t meet the example of a “proof” because it doesn’t “prove” anything, consider this argument:

polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html

This post is about how .9 repeating equals 1.

Now, it does. It absolutely does, it’s been proven. In fact, there’s an algebraic proof.

The standard algebra **proof **(which, if you modify it a little, works to convert any repeating decimal into a fraction) runs something like this. Let x = .9999999…, and then multiply both sides by 10, so you get 10x = 9.9999999… because multiplying by 10 just moves the decimal point to the right. Then stack those two equations and subtract them (this is a legal move because you’re subtracting the same quantity from the left side, where it’s called x, as from the right, where it’s called .9999999…, but they’re the same because they’re equal. We said so, remember?):

Surely if 9x = 9, then x = 1. But since x also equals .9999999… we get that .9999999… = 1. The algebra is impeccable.

So, this is an algebraic proof.

But wait! The author already conceded that not everybody is convinced by this!

Bottom line is, you will never EVER get 1/1 to equal .99999999… You people think you can hide behind elementary algebra to fool everyone, but in reality, you’re only fooling yourselves. Infinity: The state or quality of being infinite, unlimited by space or time, without end, without beginning or end. Not even your silly blog can refute that.

So I guess this isn’t a proof, right?

 

[Taestron]

To accept this you must accept that there are things, independent of all but their own cause, that there are causes, which create things, and that it is somehow impossible for everything to ultimately result from a thing which always existed, unless that thing is God. Why can’t there simply be interacting things forever, and periodically bringing forth other things? To test the strength of this argument - take it out to some people who do not believe in God and explain it to them. See if it is, in fact, convincing. In my experience it convinces people who already believe in God, not those who do not. It is therefore, empirically, a non-proof, since proofs must prove to be proofs. Now I’m upset. My brain is full of philosophy. I will watch the synchronized swimming at the Olympics for a while to defragment it.

Indeed, the Olympics are rather relaxing. I have actually heard (secondhand) of someone being convinced from this argument. I’m not sure I agree with you idea that proofs need to be convincing. If this is the case, then the same criteria would be need to applied to the counterproofs. Are you aware of a person who has been convinced of one of the five ways, and been won over by the counterproofs? But certainly, if proofs were really unconvincing then they would eventually be ignored; we can see that this is not for the five ways.

In any case, I do have some quibbles with your argument. It is not so much that God is the only possible entity that can cause everything else, but that anything that fits this description is necessarily defined as God.

As to your other point, it is the entire point of this argument to prove why there must be an ultimate efficient cause. To say “Why can’t there simply be interacting things forever, and periodically bringing forth other things?” is really just saying “Why can’t there be an infinite regress?” which is covered in the argument. And so since Aquinas provides an argument against the infinite regress, you need to provide evidence that his argument is flawed. But I would like to ask you something that seems to be implied in your argument. Do you believe that complexity can exist without there first being simplicity?

 

[harding]

I have been thinking about these so-called proofs

Please don’t “so-call” the proofs. I understand that you don’t like the word proof–it implies that the theory is proven–but the word proof is correctly used here within context. Evidence in support of a deductive theory is properly called proof–as in “my geometery proofs” or “proof I didn’t kill her.” Note also that proof is still proof even if the theory is wrong–as in incorrect geometry proofs or misleading proof of innocence.

If you don’t want to call them the five proofs, you can call them by the name St. Thomas used: “rationes”–which translates to reason or argument. “The five arguments” is just fine. (St. Thomas quote from Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 13; definition of rationes can be found in any Latin dictionary under “ratio”.)

I found [the arguments] unconvincing

The purpose of a theory is not to convince, it is to explain. Someone may put forward a theory in an attempt to convince you to support his position, but the theory is true or false whether or not it convinces you.

Why do we need these explainations and what good are they if they don’t convince atheists? I think this quote from Catholicism For Dummies might help: “These five proofs can’t convinvce an atheist or agnostic, but they might get their minds clicking. The bottom line is that the existence of God is reasonable and that faith doesn’t contradict or oppose reason. Rather, it complements it.” (First ed., Fr. Trigilio & Fr. Brighenti, p. 63)

[The arguments] use false premises such as ‘everything requires a mover to move’.

Is that a false premise? It sounds like what Newton said: “Every object continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless compelled to change that state by external forces acted upon it.” (Principia Mathematica; quote from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_laws_of_motion )

Last I checked, the first law of motion hadn’t been repealed.

-Dave

 

[JDaniel]

I am no professional, but I have been thinking about these so-called proofs since they were first ‘explained’ to me at the age of 15 in 1970. At first I thought I did not understand them because I did not know enough,

Hoko:

Not knowing who you are responding to, I’ll give you an answer. I conjecture that you stopped any further real investigation of them after age 15. Well, that explains a lot.

and that I found them unconvincing only because of my ignorance. Now I realise that they are unconvincing because they fail to convince - and they do so so universally that I have, despite searching, failed to find anyone who has been convinced by them.

Either I’m a liar, or what I wrote above was not translatable into your native language. I am one who was convinced. I know a few others that were likewise convinced. I might find hundreds and even thousands more, but I’ve never undertaken the assignment to ask a plethora of people. You’ll find others herein. Also, you’ll find very intelligent professorial-types who are convinced. For example: drbonnette.com/author.html

They are simply plays on the meaning of words, and use false premises such as ‘everything requires a mover to mover’.

The above single statement tells me everything I need to know. Yikes! With all due respect, you do not know much at all about St. Thomas’ Five Ways. but, that’s correctable.

God bless,
jd

 

[Bobby_Jim]

I am no professional, but I have been thinking about these so-called proofs since they were first ‘explained’ to me at the age of 15 in 1970. At first I thought I did not understand them because I did not know enough, and that I found them unconvincing only because of my ignorance. Now I realise that they are unconvincing because they fail to convince - and they do so so universally that I have, despite searching, failed to find anyone who has been convinced by them. They are simply plays on the meaning of words, and use false premises such as ‘everything requires a mover to mover’.

Proving anything requires *some *premise to start with. It’s quite convenient then to be able to dismiss pretty much anything you want by categorically stating a premise as “false”. But this is the essence of our postmodern society. That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.

Using language to describe anything could be described as “simple plays on the meanings of words”, words and language themselves being symbolic. After all, words are just a bunch of sounds or printed groups of symbols; the meaning exists only in our minds. Another good basis for dismissing pretty much anything you want.

 

[Alexlex]

Mike:

Not a chance. It’s unadulterated “bluster.” These fora are filled with refutations proving that, all of which are too lengthy to re-print again. Give me an example of one, and we’ll have a go at it. 9,999.99 times out of a thousand, the arguer does not know anything more than a cursory idea of the proofs.

God bless,
jd

Il give it a try.

In Aristotle’s view final causality can exist even in the absence of consciousness and this seems to conflict with the fifth way.

What to make of this?

 

[empther]

Here it all is in a nutshell:

1. Since there cannot be an infinite past,
2. and the universe had to start,
3. and the universe could not start itself,
4. we must conclude that an eternal being started the universe.

This argument can be broken down into many small subdivisions,
and have been discussed on this forum in threads long sunk way down and forgotten.

Where’s Perplexity and the other atheists when we need them?

 

[Alexlex]

Here it all is in a nutshell:

1. Since there cannot be an infinite past,
2. and the universe had to start,
3. and the universe could not start itself,
4. we must conclude that an eternal being started the universe.

This argument can be broken down into many small subdivisions,
and have been discussed on this forum in threads long sunk way down and forgotten.

Where’s Perplexity and the other atheists when we need them?

Im not fond of mechanistic arguments such as those with a creator at some point in the past. Aquin’as arguments dont even have to suppose a beginning of the universe for them to work, I personnaly find that stronger than these contemporary design arguments.

 

[Sair]

Proving anything requires *some *premise to start with. It’s quite convenient then to be able to dismiss pretty much anything you want by categorically stating a premise as “false”. But this is the essence of our postmodern society. That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.

Using language to describe anything could be described as “simple plays on the meanings of words”, words and language themselves being symbolic. After all, words are just a bunch of sounds or printed groups of symbols; the meaning exists only in our minds. Another good basis for dismissing pretty much anything you want.

But then, it could easily be said that Aquinas’s ‘proofs’ or ‘arguments’ or whatever they are most properly called, are indeed based upon the premise that God exists - they can be taken as rationalisations of belief in that premise. As Hokomai pointed out, they may strengthen the conviction of those who already believe, but their power to convince and convert is far more dubious.

If, indeed, they demonstrate anything, it is merely an impersonal prime mover - there is still the leap to make from there to a theistic concept of god; even Antony Flew, often held up by believers as a “success story”, was only ever convinced that deism was the case, not theism.

 

[ColdComfort]

But then, it could easily be said that Aquinas’s ‘proofs’ or ‘arguments’ or whatever they are most properly called, are indeed based upon the premise that God exists - they can be taken as rationalisations of belief in that premise. As Hokomai pointed out, they may strengthen the conviction of those who already believe, but their power to convince and convert is far more dubious.

If, indeed, they demonstrate anything, it is merely an impersonal prime mover - there is still the leap to make from there to a theistic concept of god; even Antony Flew, often held up by believers as a “success story”, was only ever convinced that deism was the case, not theism.

Besides Feser’s The Last Superstitution I would suggest you read his book on Aquinas. He points out that many people only read that part of the ST that contains the Five Ways. In the rest of the of the ST he spends a great deal of time arguing that the God he refers to is indeed the God of Christian belief. As pointed out already, the ST is meant to be an introduction to sacred science. The Five ways are sort of a summary and you have to read other parts of Aquinas to understand the full argument. For example, Aquinas does not see efficent causation in isolation from formal, material and final causes.

His arguments have often been misrepresented. In this thread someone wrote that Aquinas makes the assumption that everything has a cause. The exact assumption is that everything that moves has a cause.

 

[belorg]

I ran across this statement in another thread on this forum. The “it” is Aquinas’ Five Ways, as best I can determine.

So is this statement true, or is it bluster? Please elaborate.

BTW, as I ask various questions in this forum, please don’t think, as some responders have, that my own faith is weak or wavering. I pursue these questions because I find them enlightening, and hope others will also.

It is true and it is bluster.
I am an amateur atheist and I can debunk Aquinas’ five ways to my own satisfaction and that of other atheists.
But most Thomists do not accept my debunking. So in that sense, it is bluster.

No argument for theism is completely bulletproof, and the same holds for arguments for atheism. If there was such a thing as a bulletproof argument for or against God, there would be no discussion anymore.

I agree with other posters here that many people who try to debunk the Five Ways actually do not understand them. Unfortunately, the same is true for many who defend the Five ways. I see many theists here defending ideas that actually contradict Thomism while still maintaining that Aquinas was correct.

 

[dshix]

You haven’t looked hard enough for conversion stories then. Dr. Edward Feser (who I suggest you w-mail, and this is not as a challenge-I just e-mailed him this morning and he already got back to me ) was converted by the Five Ways. He recently put his conversion story online. This also answers your challenge of finding a person who doesn’t believe in God and who became converted by the proofs.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/road-from-atheism.html

A relevant snippet:

As for your argument that it doesn’t meet the example of a “proof” because it doesn’t “prove” anything, consider this argument:

polymathematics.typepad.com/polymath/2006/06/no_im_sorry_it_.html

This post is about how .9 repeating equals 1.

Now, it does. It absolutely does, it’s been proven. In fact, there’s an algebraic proof.

So, this is an algebraic proof.

But wait! The author already conceded that not everybody is convinced by this!

So I guess this isn’t a proof, right?

This proof is a classic algebra trick; it is very interesting. To further what you already said:

Once you determine that .999 repeating is equivalent to 1, you can then say:

.999… = 1
.999… - .999… = 1 - .999…
0 = .00000000000000000…

You’d think that eventually .000 repeating will have a one on the end, but it never will. Since there is an infinite number of zeros, you’ll never get there!

Or this one:

.333… = 1/3
.333… x 3 = 1/3 x 3
.999… = 1

This one takes you back to the original problem.

Beautiful, isn’t it?