Aquinas's Five definitions of God

[davidv]

Hi,

Candide West in this thread,and specifically this post, (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9677050&postcount=348) raised an interesting question.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Five Ways prove what they intend to prove. Why do we assume all five proofs prove one God? Wouldn’t the five proofs actually prove five different “gods”, each responsible for some different aspect of the world?

I’ll put it another way. We know that the first proof proves that there must be a Prime Mover-a thing that sets everything else in motion.

-The second proof defines God in terms of efficient causality; God is the “First Cause”, not the “Prime Mover”. So God makes everything else move (like a car rolling) in the first proof, but God causes everything (like a fire lighting) in the second proof. They’re closely related, but different. So now we know that God is the Prime Mover and the First Efficient Cause.

-The third proof defines God as the Necessary Being. In this proof it is said that God must cause everything else to exits. So here we learn that God also has the ability to create literally anything not logically contradictory.

-The fourth proof defines God as the Perfect Being. God is the “measuring stick” for all that is “perfect” (things like goodness, knowledge, etc…it’s a concept specified more in detail in the rest of the Summa). At any rate, that would mean he is omniscient (maximum knowledge), omnipotent (maximum power), and omnibenevolent (maximum goodness).

-The fifth proof defines God as what I’ll refer to as the “Intelligent Director”. Basically since things with no intelligence act the same way nearly every time (i.e., a match when struck on the right surface almost always produces a flame), there needs to be something that “directs” them, called God. So we know that God has the power to will things already in existence.

newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

How is it proven that each proof refers to the same being? Why can’t each proof refer to different beings, all of which exist?

I’m curious to see the answers. It was never a question I seriously considered.

One striking feature about the five proofs is that every proof is very interrelated. There’s a lot of overlap. If you prove God one way many times you’re over half way there to proving God in another way. Indeed, sometimes the distinctions in-between the proofs were so subtle that it was heard for me to come up with a specific descriptor for each definition proven.

Still, I’m not sure of the exact steps to get from point A to point E.

My understanding is that Thomas’s arguments are not definitions. They are ways to know of and about God.

I had lasagne for lunch. I came to know about in four ways. I saw it. I touched it. I smelled it. And I tasted it. Did I have four different lunches? Or was it a singular lunch viewed from four different perspectives?

I think Thomas’s Five Ways should be viewed similarly to my lunch example.

 

[danserr]

Marc Antony and danseer,
A simply reading of Aquinas’ objection 2 in the question if God is self-evident is clearly Anslem’s ontological argument, I find the arguments that Aquinas was not referring to an ontological proof completely unconvincing.

As to Fr Knox’s statement, I will take responsibility for its supposed absurdity in my paraphrasing and memory. On another thread, I posted the exact quote, when I get a chance I will find it.

Also, Aquinas refuted this in other parts of his writings outsife the Summa:

From Summa con Gentiles

The desire to “proove” God exists relying on human reason alone, removed from our human experience, seems to be deeply rooted in a lot of intelligent philosophers. So if it wasn’t for following in the footsteps as such Giants as Aquinas and Knox, I would question myself and not them. But Aquinas is a philosopher of reality, what we see and experience, and building reason from there.

That is a better way of proving God exists.

Back to the original question: As to there being one God, and not 5, again Aquinas answers that in question 3, article 7 to be precise.

newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article7

resorting to our experience in the world and

As to the OA, I would just point out that even if Aquinas’s does raise a successful objection to Anselm’s version (which I am not sure of), his objection does not apply to modern forms of the argument.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi,

Candide West in this thread,and specifically this post, (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9677050&postcount=348) raised an interesting question.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Five Ways prove what they intend to prove. Why do we assume all five proofs prove one God? Wouldn’t the five proofs actually prove five different “gods”, each responsible for some different aspect of the world?

Marc:

Actually, in theory, at least one of them could refer to more than one being. But, four of them contain within themselves proofs for a singular God.

I’ll put it another way. We know that the first proof proves that there must be a Prime Mover-a thing that sets everything else in motion.

The aforementioned description is a tad too heavy. St. Thomas’ first proof shows that whatever moves is moved by another, and if that one is moved, it too is moved by another, and so on and on. But, such a series cannot traverse back to infinity because there would then be no first mover, and therefore no subsequent movers or motion. This proof requires that the reader understand what “infinity” actually means.

Now, were there more than one Prime Mover, all things would be in senseless, helter-skelter motion. Each initiating mover moving what he wants, when he wants and where he wants. And, considering the enormous numbers of mobile beings, consultation would be out of the question. “Order” would be a referent to a joke.

-The second proof defines God in terms of efficient causality; God is the “First Cause”, not the “Prime Mover”. So God makes everything else move (like a car rolling) in the first proof, but God causes everything (like a fire lighting) in the second proof. They’re closely related, but different. So now we know that God is the Prime Mover and the First Efficient Cause.

His second proof shows that in the world of sense, there is an order of agency. Since it is impossible for a thing to cause itself, it must be caused by some other efficient cause that is itself in act (and not in potency in the same respect). As in the proof by antecedent mover, the order cannot traverse back to infinity because, just as in the order of movers, if the first cause is removed, there would be no effects. In other words, there would be nothing.

Also, like the first mover argument, consultation would be out of the question. You could easily have primary causers causing whatever they wanted to, despite that it might seriously conflict with what another causer is causing.

-The third proof defines God as the Necessary Being. In this proof it is said that God must cause everything else to exits. So here we learn that God also has the ability to create literally anything not logically contradictory.

This third proof shows us that in the world there are things that are possible and things that are necessary. We see this by being aware of generation and corruption, i.e., things come into existence and things go out of existence. Thus, it is possible that all beings may exist at any time, or not exist at another time. But, if every being has the possibility to not be, then at some point in time, all beings could not-be simultaneously. If that were to occur, we would not be here now, and neither would anything else. Therefore, there must be a necessary being, i.e., a being which makes the possibility of the simultaneous non-existence of everything impossible.

This argument doesn’t argue for a singular Necessary Being, in my opinion. It would seem that there could be two or more.

-The fourth proof defines God as the Perfect Being. God is the “measuring stick” for all that is “perfect” (things like goodness, knowledge, etc…it’s a concept specified more in detail in the rest of the Summa). At any rate, that would mean he is omniscient (maximum knowledge), omnipotent (maximum power), and omnibenevolent (maximum goodness).

The fourth proof shows us that existing things are not equal. In other words, among the various categories of beings, there are those which are “more” noble, good, or true, and those things which are “less” noble, good, or true. However, these are things that we predicate of beings according as they resemble that which is understood to be the maximum in their category. Fire, for example, is predicated to be hottest because fire is the maximum of heat in the category. Further, St. Thomas shows that the maximum being in a category is the cause of all else in the category beneath it. But, we know there are things that are good, noble, and true, in many categories. Since we know that there are things that are “maximum” in all categories, and since there is always something more “perfect” in any category, what “maximum” do they resemble that permits us to predicate their level of being? Now, all that exists exists by participation in that being that causes them to be. And, this Being, as we have seen, must be the ultimate of perfection in the category of being, per se. We call this being God.

It seems to me that there can only be one Being that possesses ultimate perfection of being and no other. Remember, the category of being is a singular category that subsumes the totality of all beings. Any more than one would be a huge contradiction.

-The fifth proof defines God as what I’ll refer to as the “Intelligent Director”. Basically since things with no intelligence act the same way nearly every time (i.e., a match when struck on the right surface almost always produces a flame), there needs to be something that “directs” them, called God. So we know that God has the power to will things already in existence.

The fifth proof speaks to purpose. It tells us that all things that are are made for essentially fairly specific purposes, despite that some things seem to have more than one. Throughout our experience we notice that all things act or behave in manners that betoken them. For example, the primary purpose of the spider is to help keep the population of other insects in check. But, the spider is not the cause of its own purpose. And so it is with everything. So, there must be an intelligent, purpose imparting cause of each thing.

This would seem to indicate the need for a singular intelligent, purpose-imparter. More than one could certainly involve us in some very absurd contradictions.

How is it proven that each proof refers to the same being? Why can’t each proof refer to different beings, all of which exist?

Each proof could point to a different being, if we don’t think them through. These proofs are not designed for complete overlap. If they were, they would be redundant. What St. Thomas wished to show is that there is more than one a priori dialectic to arrive at God through reason. From this point, another set of arguments comes into play. These arguments – once he has proven the existence of at least one fundamental being – essentially derive from Revelation. Revelation teaches us that God is Infinite. Two infinite beings cannot coexist side by side for very obvious reasons: otherwise they would not be “infinite.”

Revelation teaches us that God is Eternal. So, regardless of whether we live in a universe, or a multiverse, God has been always present to fulfill the requirements of the Five Ways. Revelation teaches us that God is Simple, thus God has no parts inside of parts, subjecting Him to corruption. Revelation teaches us that God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, therefore all of the things which St. Thomas has proven that He does, He can do. Revelation teaches us that God is Unsurpassed Love, because if He weren’t and he was Omnipotent, we would be grasshoppers on a clothesline – and, perhaps, an unending clothesline of hell. Revelation teaches us that He is supremely Good, because if He weren’t we wouldn’t know what was Good or what was not. He has done a remarkable job considering that we are in part physical beings.

One striking feature about the five proofs is that every proof is very interrelated. There’s a lot of overlap. If you prove God one way many times you’re over half way there to proving God in another way. Indeed, sometimes the distinctions in-between the proofs were so subtle that it was heard for me to come up with a specific descriptor for each definition proven.

But dissimilar enough to see that they each respond to different, important a priori underlying qualifiers that directly expose themselves as proofs for God’s existence.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

From how I understand it there can only be one perfect God since if there were multiple perfect Gods not lacking any perfection the other God had then they would essentially all be the same God.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, I am on record on this forum for not liking ontological arguments for God’s existence. And I believe I have Aquinas to back up my position.

In his very first article “Is the existence of God Self-evident” he provides the following reply to objection 2

As the great Fr Knox wrote (to paraphrase) and atheist would reply to the ontological argument that I simply don’t have to think about God, therefore the proof fails.

Tafan:

But, it’s impossible. It’s impossible to not think about God at at least one time in one’s life. Anyone who says they have will also find it impossible to utter an understandable word! It would be impossible for them to tell you that.

Now, some lost tribe might not have thought about God. But, at least then we’d know they’re probably telling the truth - if you can figure out what they are saying. IOW, the notion of God is everywhere, in one way or another, in one form or another.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I believe Aquinas did think that his proofs provided mathematical certainty of God’s existence, but in general I don’t think Christians need to take the large burden of thinking we need to prove God’s existence with mathematical certainty. I think it is enough to show strong probability and this is how I prefer to regard my favorite arguments

Yes, the ontological argument, if successful does help your position (more in my next post), but I think you should not be too concerned to demand mathematical certainty. If we operate based on strong probability in daily life, history, science, even much philosophy, why shouldn’t that be good enough? In regards to your OP, unless an atheist can suggest some reason why Occam’s razor should not apply, then this seems like a good consideration to accept one God rather than many.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yeah, that’s where I’m stuck really. It seems as if he uses each argument to eventually come to the same conclusions as the others but it’s very “hidden”, so to speak.

When Thomas says " an all men call this God." and similar remarks after each of the Five Ways, these are not conclusions, they are statements made to illustrate that most would recoginze the Unmoved Mover, the conclusion of the First Way, as God. It is not part of the argument. Thomas demonstrates in Questions 3-11 he demonstrates this very thing. By the time you finish Question 11 we see that each of the Five Ways does indeed conclude in a different aspect of the being " all men call God…" And He is indeed ONE.

To be fair to Candide the “Personal God” objection is still considered a serious objection today (I came across it on philosophyexperiments.com, for example), but I think it’s unfair to Aquinas if we say he never addressed it.

Of course it is, they can’t afford to allow a really existing Personal God to enter the picture. That would destroy their entire world view. Have you read anything by Edward Feser. I would highly recommend you read " The Last Superstition (skip pg 146 - for Doctors and Nurses only, maybe) " and his " Aquinas. " Reading authors of the secular/mechinistic/materialistic persuasion will just give you indigestion. Leave them to the Pros.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Of course it is, they can’t afford to allow a really existing Personal God to enter the picture. That would destroy their entire world view. Have you read anything by Edward Feser. I would highly recommend you read " The Last Superstition " and his " Aquinas. " Reading authors of the secular/mechinistic/materialistic persuasion will just give you indigestion. Leave them to the Pros.

Your whole post is very good, but I’d like to respond to this part.

I love Dr. Feser! Far and away my favorite philosopher, he is why I am a Thomist in the first place. Haven’t read his books but I closely follow his blog and have even e-mailed him twice (to his credit, he responded both times).

Back when I was considering atheism I found him when looking up theistic responses to the five proofs (under the assumption "Theists can’t be this stupid! ). He was the major factor in keeping me a theist.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Your whole post is very good, but I’d like to respond to this part.

I love Dr. Feser! Far and away my favorite philosopher, he is why I am a Thomist in the first place. Haven’t read his books but I closely follow his blog and have even e-mailed him twice (to his credit, he responded both times).

Back when I was considering atheism I found him when looking up theistic responses to the five proofs (under the assumption "Theists can’t be this stupid! ). He was the major factor in keeping me a theist.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Faith is a virtue, freely and graciously granted by the Holy Spirit. There are no proofs of God. If there were, faith would not be necessary, and the gifts of the Spirit would be unnecessary.

Aquinas was unaware of many things, and his proofs are easily refuted, today. That in no way invalidates the wonderful gifts, and graces of Almighty God.

To wit :

1. Unmoved mover.

• Assumes linnear time, and, that linnear time is (already) in place.
• Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If God “caused” causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
• Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
  (A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in spacetime, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it’s relative past), and vice versa.
• Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
• Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
  What he really should have said is “acceleration requires energy”. We know from physics it is acceleration which requires (name removed by moderator)ut of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about “increasing rate(s) of motion”, (acceleration). Physics tells us “things in motion stay in motion”. The (name removed by moderator)ut of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just “motion”. Thus motion’s origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas’ argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
  Aquinas’ other sub- assertions about this are stated, but not proven, in any way, and the individual argumants which are staed as conclusions, are staed as if they were the only possible conclusion, with no proof that is true.
• First and foremost, this argument assumes an object which “appears” at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
  a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
  b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
  c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
  d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a “perfect” transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

1. First Cause

• Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

1. Contingent Being.
   *. Essentially “god of the gaps”. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place. If the Principle of Contingency is a fundamental element of the structure of the universe, then it is not possible that God created the principles to which, (“Contingent and non-Contingent” being), God is subject.
2. Perfection.

• Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
• Perfection’s definition is not established.
• Assumes there is only one “perfect standard”. Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
• States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of God. Not proven.
  ((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes God a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), Creator, which is not possible, to a person of faith)).
• A Perfect, Omnipotent God could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
• Assumes God is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Per Plato, (Euthyphro’s Dillema), (written for “morality”, but works here) :

• If God made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If the creature was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect God ?
  If God had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then He could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of God).
  If He could NOT have made something else, and still be God, then a standard exists, apart from God.
  If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from God.
  Could He have made something else ?
  If He could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from God.
  Is something not perfect, because God says it’s not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it’s objectively not perfect , and God had to say that ?
  Would something imperfect, be perfect, if God says it’s perfect ?
  Conclusions:
  If God could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be God, then the source of the perfection is not God.
  If it would still be perfect , even if God says it’s not perfect, then the source of perfection is not God.
  If the source of perfection is not God,then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect. That is simply unacceptable to a person of faith.

1. Anthropic Principle.
   Refuted so many times, not worth discussion.

(Trying to use reason to make the leap of faith, or accept the grace of faith, is a useless endeavor.) We must simply accept the graces, granted to us.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Aquinas was unaware of many things, and his proofs are easily refuted, today.

Oh geez. First of all every single silly “refutation” is based on ridiculous strawmen of the proofs. None of them are even CLOSE to refuting the actual proofs. It’s not even worth it to go through them all. There are just too many problems. You clearly misunderstand Aquinas completely, and I suggest you go read some stuff by Dr. Feser, like “The Last Superstition”. Read it with a clear mind and not with an attitude where you try to prove everything he says wrong and you should learn something. Or just read the Summa Theologica again, this time with an open mind; throw away every half-baked preconceived notion about the proofs that you have now.

But besides all of that, this is totally off topic from my original post. I said in my original post that we’re assuming for the sake of argument that the proofs are true. If you truly believe you actually made a brilliant post then I suggest you copy the whole thing and paste it into a new thread. I’m sure people will be very interested in checking out your “refutations” there.

 

[Faithdancer]

Faith is a virtue, freely and graciously granted by the Holy Spirit. There are no proofs of God. If there were, faith would not be necessary, and the gifts of the Spirit would be unnecessary.

Aquinas was unaware of many things, and his proofs are easily refuted, today. That in no way invalidates the wonderful gifts, and graces of Almighty God.

To wit :

1. Unmoved mover.

• Assumes linnear time, and, that linnear time is (already) in place.
• Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If God “caused” causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
• Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
  (A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in spacetime, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it’s relative past), and vice versa.
• Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
• Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
  What he really should have said is “acceleration requires energy”. We know from physics it is acceleration which requires (name removed by moderator)ut of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about “increasing rate(s) of motion”, (acceleration). Physics tells us “things in motion stay in motion”. The (name removed by moderator)ut of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just “motion”. Thus motion’s origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas’ argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
  Aquinas’ other sub- assertions about this are stated, but not proven, in any way, and the individual argumants which are staed as conclusions, are staed as if they were the only possible conclusion, with no proof that is true.
• First and foremost, this argument assumes an object which “appears” at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
  a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
  b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
  c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
  d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a “perfect” transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

1. First Cause

• Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

1. Contingent Being.
   *. Essentially “god of the gaps”. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place. If the Principle of Contingency is a fundamental element of the structure of the universe, then it is not possible that God created the principles to which, (“Contingent and non-Contingent” being), God is subject.
2. Perfection.

• Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
• Perfection’s definition is not established.
• Assumes there is only one “perfect standard”. Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
• States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of God. Not proven.
  ((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes God a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), Creator, which is not possible, to a person of faith)).
• A Perfect, Omnipotent God could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
• Assumes God is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Per Plato, (Euthyphro’s Dillema), (written for “morality”, but works here) :

• If God made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If the creature was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect God ?
  If God had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then He could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of God).
  If He could NOT have made something else, and still be God, then a standard exists, apart from God.
  If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from God.
  Could He have made something else ?
  If He could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from God.
  Is something not perfect, because God says it’s not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it’s objectively not perfect , and God had to say that ?
  Would something imperfect, be perfect, if God says it’s perfect ?
  Conclusions:
  If God could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be God, then the source of the perfection is not God.
  If it would still be perfect , even if God says it’s not perfect, then the source of perfection is not God.
  If the source of perfection is not God,then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect. That is simply unacceptable to a person of faith.

1. Anthropic Principle.
   Refuted so many times, not worth discussion.

(Trying to use reason to make the leap of faith, or accept the grace of faith, is a useless endeavor.) We must simply accept the graces, granted to us.

Without Aquinas, there is no Episcopalian faith.

 

[Faithdancer]

Anyone else notice that there are no “atheists” to be found yet on this thread? Is Aquinas like garlic to them?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Anyone else notice that there are no “atheists” to be found yet on this thread? Is Aquinas like garlic to them?

Oh no, to be fair I created this post through a discussion with an atheist about Aquinas (there’s a link in my original post).

I think the reason no atheists have showed up is because I am assuming for the sake of argument the proofs are true-that’s the point of the thread.

Atheists, of course, wouldn’t be of much help since they don’t believe the arguments work anyway!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ll add a bit more. When I first read Dr. Feser it was with fascination; here he was, so supremely confident in the so-called new atheists that he wasn’t even debating their critiques of the proofs! He was just telling them that their “critiques” were actually strawmen. This fascinated me; Dawkins and co.'s versions of the proofs are the versions I had heard my entire life, and I’d known about Aquinas for a long time and had long since dismissed his arguments as “refuted”.

Then here was Dr. Feser offering what was to me a completely new reformulation of the proofs! Ones that hardly even resembled what I had thought the proofs were!

I decided to test it. I took Dr. Feser’s much stronger and more airtight version of the cosmological argument and googled it; almost every page was by some atheist refuting the argument. Not a single one of the arguments “refuted” resembled anything like Dr. Feser’s airtight “reformulation” of the argument (of course it was no reformulation, but an explanation). Literally every single one refuted a strawman! I started following Dr. Feser very closely after that.

Eventually when I did read the section of the Summa about the existence of God it seemed so glaringly obvious to me that most “refuted” versions of the argument were strawmen I was amazed none of them had figured it out.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Oh geez. First of all every single silly “refutation” is based on ridiculous strawmen of the proofs. None of them are even CLOSE to refuting the actual proofs. It’s not even worth it to go through them all. There are just too many problems. You clearly misunderstand Aquinas completely, and I suggest you go read some stuff by Dr. Feser, like “The Last Superstition”. Read it with a clear mind and not with an attitude where you try to prove everything he says wrong and you should learn something. Or just read the Summa Theologica again, this time with an open mind; throw away every half-baked preconceived notion about the proofs that you have now.

But besides all of that, this is totally off topic from my original post. I said in my original post that we’re assuming for the sake of argument that the proofs are true. If you truly believe you actually made a brilliant post then I suggest you copy the whole thing and paste it into a new thread. I’m sure people will be very interested in checking out your “refutations” there.

Oh geeze. right back at ya.
Sorry you folks will have to do a lot better than that. Refute any one of them if you can. Obviously you can’t even try. Aquinas does not have five "definitions,so the thread is nonsenscial. The “proofs” are not “strawmen”. Apparently you are not aware of the meaning of a “strawman” argument. I did not set up “strawmen” I directly address the proofs. This is a public forum. My post was on topic. The OP has no right to restrict posts which are on topic. Again, there exist no such thing as “definitions” apart from the proofs in the Summa Theologica, of Thomas Aquinas… Apparently you also have not read the Summa. A “definition” by definition, would limit God’s infinite nature. God is not definable, by humans.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Oh geeze. right back at ya.
Sorry you folks will have to do a lot better than that. Refute any one of them if you can. Obviously you can’t even try. Aquinas does not have five "definitions,so the thread is nonsenscial. The “proofs” are not “strawmen”. Apparently you are not aware of the meaning of a “strawman” argument. I did not set up “strawmen” I directly address the proofs. This is a public forum. My post was on topic. The OP has no right to restrict posts which are on topic. Again, there exist no such thing as “definitions” apart from the proofs in the Summa Theologica, of Thomas Aquinas… Apparently you also have not read the Summa. A “definition” by definition, would limit God’s infinite nature. God is not definable, by humans.

It is not on topic at all. In the original post I SPECIFICALLY stated (I am quoting from the original post directly now):

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Five Ways prove what they intend to prove.

You are saying that you don’t think the five proofs are correct. That is fine and all, but if you want to make that argument start a new thread, post this big list of refutations and then wait for responses. This thread is not about the validity of the proofs. It’s taken for granted.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

Without Aquinas, there is no Episcopalian faith.

Wrong. The fact that Aquinas may have played a part in the development of some of the Christianities, historically, may or may not be relevant today. To say “without Aquinas” there would be no Angican faith, is tantamout to making him the Savior. Are you trying to imply, that without him, there would be no Catholic Church ? The fact is Aquinas, at one point in his career was condemned by the church, and he had a very checkerd career. No one in my Cathedral Parish has ever mentioned him, even once. Christianity did very nicely without him, and he filled a need in Scholasticism. The best way to insure one becomes irrelevant,is to stand on one postion, and never budge, while the world changes around one. The fact is Aquinas’ views, and proofs, are outdated. Unless Christianity can delelop new arguments which are at least aware of scince, it will be seen as an anachronism. The Church chnaged it’s mind on Evolution, and the Big Bang. They need to learn about Relativity, and the other advances.

In the Compendium, Aquinas says Eve was the person the Serpent tempted first because “the light of reason shone less brightly in her”. Say what ? He actually thought women were more studip than men. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US, is one of those stupid women. So it seems, that WITH Aquinas, there would be no Episcopal Church, in the US today.

 

[Jason_Firestone]

It is not on topic at all. In the original post I SPECIFICALLY stated (I am quoting from the original post directly now):

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Five Ways prove what they intend to prove.

You are saying that you don’t think the five proofs are correct. That is fine and all, but if you want to make that argument start a new thread, post this big list of refutations and then wait for responses. This thread is not about the validity of the proofs. It’s taken for granted.

If I stated something ina thread that was patently false, YOU would not hesitate to say so. Sorry. Threads are not the personal possessions of the initiator. This is a PUBLIC board, and your premise is patently false.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If I stated something ina thread that was patently false, YOU would not hesitate to say so. Sorry. Threads are not the personal possessions of the initiator. This is a PUBLIC board, and your premise is patently false.

If you started a thread that said, “Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that Episcopalianism is the true faith” you wouldn’t find it ridiculous if I came in and stopped all discussion by arguing over and over how false it is, even though that’s not the topic of the thread?

I can actually prove to you that I would “hesitate to say” if a thread was patently false. Somebody else started a thread with the phrase “if you were an atheist…” I played by the rules. If you’d like, I’ll show you the link.

The thread is about IF you accept the proofs. You don’t, so start your own thread or pretend you do to join in the discussion.

I don’t even have a problem with your beliefs about Aquinas. If you want me to I’ll go through your post in detail. But not in this thread. That’s not the topic of this thread. Please stop trying to change the topic.