Aquinas' Third Proof for God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thinkandmull said:
Saying that a door is like another door says nothing about an invisible reality (substance). I would like however to see the proof that there are two principles involved to make the door, instead of just its matter coming into existence. As for the Third Way (which is just a reformulation of the first two ways), I don’t see how it necessarily follows there must be a God just because you can paint a chair. Finally, God changed in a sense when he assumed the humanity of the son.

I recommend you read Rene Descartes Third Meditation.
Click to expand...
The fact that you said a door is like another door indicates that you implicitely recognize substance; if you didn’t you couldnt say that there are two doors. If door can be predicated to two completely different objects the there is something that common between them that is not any of their visible features. Going further, the fact that we can apply this common notion to immaterial or unrelated concepts, such as have a doorway to the mind, indicates that the human mind intuitively recognizes substances, abstracts them, and can communicate with other minds using language that correctly assumes that the other mind also recognizes substances.

This is a given of human existence. It isn’t a mathematical proof, but an underlying assumption and foundation for human thought and existence. Without these intuitive functions we can’t have a conversation, or even plan our day. It is irrational to discard such fundamental human intuition.
 
It occurs to me that I haven’t addressed the original post.

The problem with this argument isn’t immediately obvious, but is easily missed by modern people living in the age of the Big Bang Theory.

This argument is designed to answer those that believed the universe had no beginning. It implicitely assumes an infinite stretch of time and argues that if something is possible to be or not be, then given an infinite stretch of time it should already have not been, and therefore there should be nothing.

Without the infinite stretch of time the argument doesn’t make much sense. This is how it was explained to me by a Dominican theologian, at any rate.
 
Well the only evidence I’ve seen for a contingency in the world on this issue is that matter can be manipulated. It be happy to see how this is a good argument, but I am not getting it yet. Necessity and contingency are theological concepts, and are in the mind of the thinker. It has to be shown with certainty that the latter applies to the world in the theological sense
 
We don’t really need to discuss whether common nouns indicate something beyond sense in objects since this thread is about the Third Way. The two premises that must be defended are (1) That the world is contingent in the theological sense (2) that this contingency means it could not have been forever on its own. Both premises are not defended by Aquinas himself.
 
I don’t have anything more to add to this discussion though. I think the world can be seen like space, infinite in size and duration. At least mathematicians say the world could always have existed. If it could, then the world of causes was just an infinite string from the past, like the horizon that never ends. From theology, though, I know there is a God that created it. God bless
 
thinkandmull said:
Well the only evidence I’ve seen for a contingency in the world on this issue is that matter can be manipulated. It be happy to see how this is a good argument, but I am not getting it yet. Necessity and contingency are theological concepts, and are in the mind of the thinker. It has to be shown with certainty that the latter applies to the world in the theological sense
Click to expand...
Necessity and contingency are philosophical terms being applied to theology in the case of the third way. To the extent that they apply to concrete things they are not only in the minds of thinkers.

The existence of thinkandmull is an example of a contingent being. You do not need to exist. You are not a necessary being. Your existence is contigent on the existence of your parents and God, the creator of your soul.
 
I admit that I have absolutely no education in the area of philosophy, but I’ll take a stab at explaining the Third Way. Although I do believe that Ghosty pretty much nailed it back in post #62. In the Five Ways Aquinas takes simple everyday observations and attempts to construct an argument for the existence of God based upon each of these observations. And although they may seem redundant, they’re really not. In the First Way Aquinas takes the observation that things are in motion. In the second way he takes the observation that things have a specific form. And in the Third Way he takes the observation that things exist, when it’s possible for them not to exist.

The basis of the Third Way then, is that there must be something who’s existence is necessary, because if there wasn’t a necessary thing, then at some point in the past, there wouldn’t have been anything. And if there once wasn’t anything, then there never would be anything.

So in the case of the Third Way, contingency shouldn’t be understood to mean that my existence is contingent upon something else. But rather it should be understood to mean that my existence isn’t necessary. My existence is contingent, in that it’s possible for me not to exist. But there must be something who’s existence is necessary, and that thing Aquinas says that all men speak of as God.
 
I’m not quite sure of the context, but causality is a proof of divinity.
 
thinkandmull said:
I don’t agree with any of the five ways. Although it is true the world doesn’t has to exist, and that even if time in the past ways different there would still be an infinity of static causes stretching out to the past, Aquinas fails in saying that the world could possibly be eternal from reasons perspective
Click to expand...
Universe can not possibly be eternal since it takes infinite time to reach from eternal past to now.
 
Something cannot come from nothing with there being a cause. That is the stupidest thing to think of. Causality is the most basic human truth. As for eternity, the argument is that its not like me trying to reach a point from now that is an infinity away. If time always existed, it had sufficient time to reach now. At least, that is the argument
 
thinkandmull said:
Something cannot come from nothing with there being a cause. That is the stupidest thing to think of. Causality is the most basic human truth.
Click to expand...
Causality as we know is the result of our observation of how things evolve in universe. It simply tells you how a state of universe changes to another state. You can generalize the causality as a necessity for creation of universe but you have no evidence to ensure that your generalization is correct. Moreover you have no evidence to to show that something cannot come out of nothing. Essentially we know by scientific fact, quantum mechanic, that something can come out of nothing as a fluctuation in quantum vacuum.
thinkandmull said:
As for eternity, the argument is that its not like me trying to reach a point from now that is an infinity away. If time always existed, it had sufficient time to reach now. At least, that is the argument.
Click to expand...
The sum of finite time waiting can never reach into infinity. That simply is logically impossible.
 
thinkandmull said:
Although this computer COULD have been somewhere else, could be demolished, that doesn’t mean it didn’t depend on an eternal past series of events. Its cause didn’t have to do that in the sense that God is said to be necessary. But its cause was there, and the cause behind that cause was behind it, to infinity. So a contingency argument doesn’t work. The world could be an eternity of contingent physical effects. Arguing that there must be a necessary being is a philosophical argument many will find unsatisfying
Click to expand...
But isn’t it reasonable to assume that a cause-especially a series of cause and effects proceeding in an orderly way /or resulting in order-ultimately need to have reason and purpose behind them?
 
You can’t confuse the thought of “it popped out from nowhere, it was amazing, nothing was there to cause it!” with the *philosophical *idea “if there is nothing there and no activity either, something can still happen”. If you believe the second you have no reason to believe in anything at that point. As for eternal past causes, it is not finite time we are talking about. I use to agree with the Kalam cosmological argument, but now I am starting to see how the present could be reached by an infinite series because there was INFINITE time for it to do so.

If you want to take issue with the idea that something can come from nothing even with a cause, go for it. That is a hard topic and philosophy can’t answer the question definitely. But just because we don’t know about a cause doesn’t mean its not there. I thought a lot of atheists believe in the multiverse anyway, right?
 
thinkandmull said:
You can’t confuse the thought of “it popped out from nowhere, it was amazing, nothing was there to cause it!” with the *philosophical *idea “if there is nothing there and no activity either, something can still happen”. If you believe the second you have no reason to believe in anything at that point. As for eternal past causes, it is not finite time we are talking about. I use to agree with the Kalam cosmological argument, but now I am starting to see how the present could be reached by an infinite series because there was INFINITE time for it to do so.

If you want to take issue with the idea that something can come from nothing even with a cause, go for it. That is a hard topic and philosophy can’t answer the question definitely. But just because we don’t know about a cause doesn’t mean its not there. I thought a lot of atheists believe in the multiverse anyway, right?
Click to expand...
It’s not just speaking of causes, however; it’s causes with direction. How could *mindless *causes produce anything with order and complexity? How can there not be a mindful purpose somewhere behind every cause and effect we witness. We observe said order in every facet of existence now. What is its source?
 
Are you speaking about God being conscious? If God could have always held the world in existence, the series of causes would physically be there. Reasoning from that infinite series of causes to the being that is conscious is what I was trying to nail down earlier and I didn’t see where the direct proof is. I believe the idea of God is something that is deep in our nature, and our nature cannot be wrong, otherwise everything would be relative and insane. So I work to God’s existence from the inward. I haven’t been convinced by the arguments from the world, but I am sometimes slow and if that works for you that doesn’t upset me at all 🙂
 
thinkandmull said:
Are you speaking about God being conscious? If God could have always held the world in existence, the series of causes would physically be there. Reasoning from that infinite series of causes to the being that is conscious is what I was trying to nail down earlier and I didn’t see where the direct proof is. I believe the idea of God is something that is deep in our nature, and our nature cannot be wrong, otherwise everything would be relative and insane. So I work to God’s existence from the inward. I haven’t been convinced by the arguments from the world, but I am sometimes slow and if that works for you that doesn’t upset me at all 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, purpose and order would necessarily involve consciousness.
 
It seems like loading the question to say design, because they implies a designer. Why not just say that the world is beneficial to life on earth? Isn’t that all that is meant? I am more Cartesian, I don’t think you can prove God from the world
 
thinkandmull said:
It seems like loading the question to say design, because they implies a designer. Why not just say that the world is beneficial to life on earth? Isn’t that all that is meant? I am more Cartesian, I don’t think you can prove God from the world
Click to expand...
I’m saying that if we find purpose, order, complexity, etc we would ordinarily deduce/recognize reason at play. I don’t think any of that can be separated from a conscious being, a mind at work. I’m not at all sure what it means to say that “the world is beneficial to life on earth”. Sometimes the world can be hostile to life for one thing but either way we cannot help but ask, “Why is the world beneficial to life?” Or, “Where/how did the simplest system originate, let alone life which is unfathomably complex even in its simplest form?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top