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 :
- Unmoved mover.
- Assumes linnear time, and, that linnear time is (already) in place.
Not so. The First Way depicts the simultaneous motion of the mover and the mobile, in series.
- Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If God “caused” causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
Translation, please.
- Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
He didn’t need to. It was irrelevant to what he was arguing.
(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.
That’s about as vague as anyone could be!
- Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
Not so.
- 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.
Then show me a billiard ball, on a perfectly level pool table, move itself. Show me a tree that brought itself into existence. Show me a human being that brought himself into being. Show me absolute abiogenesis.
What he really should have said is “acceleration requires energy”.
Not so. He was speaking directly to motion, the act of the potential precisely as potential. Nothing more, nothing less. You are dramatically altering the arguments.
We know from physics it is acceleration which requires (name removed by moderator)ut of energy, not motion.
It doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant.
Aquinas did not know about “increasing rate(s) of motion”, (acceleration).
I’m sure he did, but it was irrelevant.
Physics tells us “things in motion stay in motion”.
Just as Newton predicted:
“Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right [straight] line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.” - Isaac Newton
Show me a place in the universe where this simple experiment could be tested.
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”.
These would only further contribute to Aquinas’ dialectic. Not a good argument to have brought into the picture.
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.)
Which you have utterly failed to do.
Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
It was irrelevant. And, it’s still irrelevant to his argument.
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.
Such as:
- 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.
No, it does not.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
Irrelevant.
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.
The “absoluteness” of rest was and is irrelevant.
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.
Not the argument. A red herring.
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,
A red herring probably based on almost total unfamiliarity with Aquinas’ argument.
(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).
So! You are not a
theist!
- First Cause
- Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).
Irrelevant; red herring.
- Contingent Being.
*. Essentially “god of the gaps”.
Ahh. Now we have something! He may well be the “God of the Gaps.” If everything is essentially Space, or more precisely, Infinite Space, or the “Mind of God,” and dimensionless particles undergoing continuous arrangement and re-arrangement form into equi-distant lattice points, producing we we see to be diverse matter, God could well be the “God of the Gaps!”
Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place.
Again, irrelevant and a red herring.
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.
Absurd. Your naked assertion.
- Perfection.
- Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
More gobbledygook from un-awareness of the argument.
- Perfection’s definition is not established.
Irrelevant.
- Assumes there is only one “perfect standard”. Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
More gobbledygook based upon naked assertion.
- States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of God.
Not so and not even pertinent.
I am in disbelief of the ineptness of this!
- A Perfect, Omnipotent God could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
Says who? By what logic? Does God create other gods? Are we supposed to be “gods?”
- Assumes God is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.
Not so. However, He may well be, IMHO.
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 ?
Why must a “Perfect God” create “perfect beings?” Or, one could ask, did He not originally produce “perfect beings?”
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).
An absurd, really baseless conclusion. Merely your opinion.
If He could NOT have made something else, and still be God, then a standard exists, apart from God.
Irrelevant.
If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from God.
Could He have made something else ?
Why not? He made us in His image. He was under no compulsion to make anything.
If He could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from God.
Very bad argument, again based upon purely personal opinion.
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 ?
It would be impossible for God to create another God. Two (or more) side-by-side Infinite, Omnipotent Gods would be a contradiction. God does not make real contradictions. That you might perceive something as a contradiction, is not His problem.
Conclusions:
If God could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be God, then the source of the perfection is not God.
Not so. As said above, we are not and were not created to be co-gods.
If it would still be perfect , even if God says it’s not perfect, then the source of perfection is not God.
Insipid and absurd.
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.
Well, finally.
- Anthropic Principle.
Refuted so many times, not worth discussion.
Again, another naked assertion.
(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.
Conclusion: God gave us
rationality to put in the back of a closet somewhere and never let it see the light of day.
Anyway,
God bless,
jd
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.
:bowdown2: