Aquinus's five reasons that prove god

[Gaber]

Part 1

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

I wrote a full response to your reply, but it ended up being excessively long. I’ll post the first part of it here, but I don’t want to violate forum rules by posting something extremely long, just artificially divided into two posts. Therefore, I’ll wait a bit and post the second half later, hopefully after some other posts have been made in between.

Brevity may not be a factor, though it is elegant to be economical with words. Good reason to enjoy poetry!

Originally Posted by Gaber
That stand is to be expected, as you proceed from inculcation and not experience. There’s much more to be said about that, but not now.

Not inculcation, but faith and reason.

Are you either a cradle Catholic or Christian? Then considering that the mental state of a child up to about its seventh yerar, the “age of reason,” is one very like hypnotically receptive trance, then yes, inculcation. And if the child continues in a religious study like catechisme with no questioning or awareness of other paradigms, then again yes, inculcation. Now of course that inculcation can be rationalized at a later time and taken for a more encomapassing “reason,” but it starts with the conclusion already arrived at and is hardly an impartial argument. Therefore again it is inculcation. Multiply that by the factor that faith is belief, not knowledge, and there may be room for some questioning of even the deepest premises. That can only lead to greater freedom in awareness.

I still don’t know what precisely you mean by “monism.” It’s not a term I ordinarily use, or am familiar with. And then there is the common phenomenon of folks defining words to their own purposes, as well as spellings, lol!

I haven’t made up the word “monism” or its spelling. Its basic meaning is a philosophy of complete unity of the universe and God, a philosophy that denies real, substantial distinctions between creatures and between creature and Creator. Of course there are many different expressions and interpretations of monism.

Yes, the one that is most akin to what I understand experientially and by study is very much akin to the diliniation of the exquisitly diliniated transformational journey of my favorit Catholic mysitc. But she hardly calls it monism, and neither do I. That would be a term which leads to even intellectual misunderstanding, not to mention a probable blockage of a more useful view of what such a term might point to.

OK. But if there is no one there, where does the “of” come from? Someone has to be “home” first, yes? Are you not already there to see yourslef wake up in the morning?

Certainly there needs to be a subject first (at least logically speaking, if not chronologically) in order for the subject to be aware. However, my point is that this awareness always takes the form of awareness of. Something outside the subject is revealed to the subject, and so he is made aware of it.

No, not chronologically, because that dimension of awareness has no element of duration. And yes, it tkes the form of “awareness of” until reaching the nineth fulcrum of awareness. Then that ceases, even in the ordinary waking state. Then there is only IS.

Well, apparently to you, to get the meaning you want, it does. (see above) But that is not how I used it. I’m sure that you are not trying to put words in my mouth,

Well, obviously “of” can be used in the sense of “for”- no one who knows the English language can deny that. For example, St. Hildegard of Bingen is so called because she was from Bingen. On the other hand the word is sometimes used otherwise, for instance when we talk about something “a mile north of here” or “a book of theology” . The question is, in what sense is awareness “of” something. For instance, to go back to my old example, a child is aware of a toy. Does the “of” indicate that the awareness belongs to the toy? Of course not- it is the child that is aware, not the toy (we assume). Does the awareness situate the child in relation to the toy in some specific way, like a city that is north of another city? No. Is the awareness something the child is doing to the toy, or otherwise something starting in the child and being directed at the toy? No, otherwise we would say the child is aware “to” the toy or “at” the toy or even “with” the toy, not “of” the toy.

Yes, there are different senses of “of.” Loking at the child’s looking, however, we find that the awarenes present as its “wakeful” state is inclusive in action by division and identification. There is much that is in the child’s sensory range that has no meaning. But the child has parsed out a thing called a “toy” and is aware of it by an action that is projection due to discovery of what appears as the discreet nature of the toy relative to the child’s sense of self identity. So what the child is doing to the toy is including it as a namable item in the inventory of the contents of its awareness.

 

[Gaber]

Part 2

Is awareness something about the toy, like a book of theology is about theology? This seems to have more plausibility at first, but upon examination it doesn’t correspond to the actual experience of awareness of something. The child doesn’t chose to be aware, and specifically to be aware about a certain thing, the way a man decides to read or write a book, and specifically a book about theology. The child was, presumably, unaware at one point that the toy was in his crib, and then the objective reality of the toy’s presence imposed itself on his mind, to his surprise and delight.

Therefore I still propose we say “of” because the direction of the process of becoming aware is from the object to the subject.

And that gives the object the power of projection, yes? Awareness functions as the ability to experience difference or contrast in the feild of sensory presentation. Given a “normal” child and a “special needs” child, the same “external” stimuli are to be had. The awarenes in one case distiguishes differences and calculates with them while in the other case the distinctions are not, as far as we can tell, made. So the awareness is a function of the ability to see contrast in degree and kind. That comes with the brain and the tie it has to what it is that lights it. Similarly, dogs hear things we don’t, eagles see things we don’t, etc, etc, etc. through all the ranges and frequencies of awareness we are not as humans wired to percieve. So awareness goes out, not in, so long as it does not discover its own root and Nature due to association with a space/time location, that being illusional as well, other than as a dimentional expereince venue.

Sense and intellect are objects of awareness. You see that you have them. Who is the seer"

Certainly, it is the subject who sees, who thinks, who is aware, and who furthermore becomes aware that he sees and thinks and is aware.

Yes. Awareness at the human level is uniquely reflexive. It is a property largly ignored and taken very littl advantage of.

However, I do not see that I have sight in the sense that I see the computer screen before me. I’ve never seen my sight itself. I’ve concluded through reason that I have a sense of sight because I have seen individual things. The awareness of things comes first; awareness of awareness and awareness of the faculties through which we have become aware come after.

Upon examination you will se the contradiction in this, if you haven’t already. Before anything is the sense “I am.” Then, upon perception. and the application of language, it can be said “…aware of waking up with a body and a mind.” The habituation of identifying with the contents of awareness allows the perception that there must be an object first.

Who perceives “objective truth?” Is it not the subject who perceives it? Is it not a surmise of relativity that there is an “object?” Relative to that which you superficially identify with, yes there are objects separate from the body/mind that you define in your awareness as an ad hoc “self.” But in reality it is like one finger sensing another on the same hand.

I admit I don’t fully follow this. Sure, the subject is a subject relative to an object. That doesn’t change the objective truth about the object or the fact that the human subject is able through reason to come to an authentic knowledge of that objective truth.

Yes, “the subject is a subject relative to an object.” But the subject “I” percioeves, or is the light to the picture of “me sees the object.” I put it that way to distinguish between the principle of self, or soul, or however one might synonymize it, a the constructed identiy one superimposes over that self and mistakes the superimposed constructed person for the substance that supports its existance. And that is the dimension that is not clearly or thoroughly examined, save by some few contemplatives or the accidentally graced. That is the direction in which substantial understanding lies and can be reasonably exegised from, as distinct from speculations short of having expereinced that state.

But until that state is known, we have the relative sort of understanding that we most commonly see touted here on these pages. That sort of relative understanding is in fact on the same footing as atheism, as both isms are defended and attacked on the grounds of mentality and its forms. Nothing wrong with that, its just that both ignore the floor they are standing on, so to speak, and thus fail to realize what is common between them and therefore continue a fruitles, however entertianing, argument.

 

[Perplexity]

How could logically speaking all powerful, all knowing, and all loving not be perfections?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘logically’. I take logic to be concerned with the inferential relations that exist between propositions, it doesn’t deal with the truth or falsity of those propositions.

But, if these properties are essentially god’s and god doesn’t exist, then these properties cannot exist. How could something that’s impossible be a perfection? Thus, if atheism is true, these properties are not perfections, or contrapositively only if theism is true are these properties perfections.

 

[atheistgirl]

What does your love entail?

Being evidenced!

Love doesn’t fill in the gaps: it is the reason for our existence.

No, the reason for my existence is my Mom and Dad.

They are the reason I’m here.

Their unconditional love and nurture and support and sacrifices, evidenced in everything they did for their family, is what sustained me through my life, and carries on sustaining me, even though now I have my own love and support network and am part of so many peoples love and support network.

Sarah x

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

But, if these properties are essentially god’s and god doesn’t exist, then these properties cannot exist. How could something that’s impossible be a perfection? Thus, if atheism is true, these properties are not perfections, or contrapositively only if theism is true are these properties perfections.

Begging the question? Check. Burden of proof? Check. False dilemma? Check. Many questions? Check. So far, you are really good with this “logic” thing.

 

[Perplexity]

Begging the question? Check. Burden of proof? Check. False dilemma? Check. Many questions? Check. So far, you are really good with this “logic” thing.

Hm, I guess I don’t understand. If you were trying to object to what I said, it’s unclear to me how exactly I’ve begged the question, created a false dilemma etc. I am quite familiar with these concepts (except ‘many questions’, which I’m presuming is another title for some better known fallacy), but fail to see how I’ve committed any of these.

 

[tonyrey]

             *What does your love entail?*

Evidence of what? We haven’t got to the root of what love is…

Love doesn’t fill in the gaps: it is the reason for our existence.

No, the reason for my existence is my Mom and Dad. They are the reason I’m here.

The reason for your existence is your Mom’s and Dad’s **love **and their power to reproduce but they didn’t create either their capacity for love or their power to reproduce.

Their unconditional love and nurture and support and sacrifices, evidenced in everything they did for their family, is what sustained me through my life, and carries on sustaining me, even though now I have my own love and support network and am part of so many peoples love and support network.

An excellent description! What sustains everyone throughout their lives and gives them the power to love, nurture, support, make sacrifices and create networks?

Purposeless processes which don’t know what they’re doing and are incapable of love? Hmmm… I wonder whether that is an adequate explanation… :ehh:

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Hm, I guess I don’t understand. If you were trying to object to what I said, it’s unclear to me how exactly I’ve begged the question, created a false dilemma etc. I am quite familiar with these concepts (except ‘many questions’, which I’m presuming is another title for some better known fallacy), but fail to see how I’ve committed any of these.

Begging the question and burden of proof fallacies both apply to the first statement, where you assert that God does not exist without proving it.
The false dilemma fallacy applies to the first statement as well, but where you assert that the properties cannot exist if God does not exist.
The many questions (sometimes called complex question or trick question) fallacy applies to the question, “How could something that’s impossible be a perfection?”

I am glad that you are not able to find your own errors, it makes debunking them so much easier.

 

[Perplexity]

Begging the question and burden of proof fallacies both apply to the first statement, where you assert that God does not exist without proving it.

As I suspected you seem deeply confused about the concepts you’re employing. Only inferences can be fallacies, not statements. So, right off the bat, my ‘first’ statement cannot possibly have committed either ‘fallacy’. But, more importantly, I’ve never said god doesn’t exist, I’d suggest reading my comment again.

The false dilemma fallacy applies to the first statement as well, but where you assert that the properties cannot exist if God does not exist.

Again, a statement cannot commit a fallacy. But, even more, that statement is a conditional, not a disjunction! Only disjunctions can be dilemmas.

The many questions (sometimes called complex question or trick question) fallacy applies to the question, “How could something that’s impossible be a perfection?”

I’m not presupposing that these properties are impossible, I’m saying they would be impossible if atheism was true. -shrug-

 

[atheistgirl]

Purposeless processes which don’t know what they’re doing and are incapable of love? Hmmm… I wonder whether that is an adequate explanation… :ehh:

Our motivations and actions are not purposeless. True, the chemical and electrical processes and impulses behind them are just that, evolved chemical and electrical processes.

I find that explanation, in the light of ever growing knowledge, to be perfectly adequate, for now. Certainly more adequate than sticking the word ‘‘God’’ in there somewhere, as if that explained anything at all.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Our motivations and actions are not purposeless. True, the chemical and electrical processes and impulses behind them are just that, evolved chemical and electrical processes.

I find that explanation, in the light of ever growing knowledge, to be perfectly adequate, for now. Certainly more adequate than sticking the word ‘‘God’’ in there somewhere, as if that explained anything at all.

Sticking the word ‘‘evolution’’ in there somewhere, as if is explains anything at all is a hopelessly inadequate subterfuge. No one has ever explained how inanimate molecules succeeded in acquiring an urge to survive and act accordingly. That is the supreme metaphysical confidence trick imposed on a gullible public who have blind faith in the power of science to explain **absolutely everything **- including itself!

The cold fact remains that no one has ever explained how purposeless activity has produced purposeful activity. There is no such thing as a free lunch in reality!

 

[atheistgirl]

The cold fact remains that no one has ever explained how purposeless activity has produced purposeful activity. There is no such thing as a free lunch in reality!

You know as well as I do that any discussion of the E word is banned. This makes it impossible to develop points and arguments in a reply. There is ample literature out there that address the points you’re raizing. You may have read them all and found them totally unconvincing. No problem. But I’m certainly not discussing the issue in any detail.

Sarah x

 

[cc42]

atheisthgirl: Have you read Aquinas’ arguments? The e word does nothing to undermine them in fact the arguments incorporate it quite nicely and actually help them.

 

[tonyrey]

The cold fact remains that no one has ever explained how purposeless

Evolution doesn’t come into it. The issue is how** purposeless** molecules confer on themselves the **urge **to survive. These are two dimensions of reality that have nothing in common. It amounts to believing that if you stir up a mixture of chemical compounds in a flask they will automatically attempt to preserve themselves with a plasticity no inanimate substances possess.

It is a fact which has never been explained nor - as far as I know - has there ever been an attempt to explain how that which is purposeless has made itself purposeful. It is equivalent to being a demigod!

 

[Gaber]

atheisthgirl: Have you read Aquinas’ arguments? The e word does nothing to undermine them in fact the arguments incorporate it quite nicely and actually help them.

“The e word?” Look at the image of the "e"lephant in the room here for a good laugh. And if you think that Aquinas is going to sway ana theist, especialy in view of what he thought of his own work near the end, you might think again.

This image is a bit larger, I think.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

As I suspected you seem deeply confused about the concepts you’re employing. Only inferences can be fallacies, not statements. So, right off the bat, my ‘first’ statement cannot possibly have committed either ‘fallacy’. But, more importantly, I’ve never said god doesn’t exist, I’d suggest reading my comment again.

Guess again. From Oxford Dictionary,

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument

Whilst generally applied to arguments, statements can, in fact, commit fallacies. I would also suggest re-reading your statement as well:

if these properties are essentially god’s and god doesn’t exist

Could you explain how that is not stating that God does not exist?

Again, a statement cannot commit a fallacy. But, even more, that statement is a conditional, not a disjunction! Only disjunctions can be dilemmas.

It is a disjunction, you are saying that there are two alternatives: either the properties exist only in God or they do not exist at all because God does not exist. There is another alternative: they exist, but not in God. Or another: that God exists but does not have those properties.

I’m not presupposing that these properties are impossible, I’m saying they would be impossible if atheism was true. -shrug-

Why is it not possible that the properties do exist in some other Being who is not God (maybe not collectively, but one particular property)? You seem to reject this idea outright with no basis.

 

[cc42]

Gaber: The elephant picture is cool. Aquinas never denonuced his work he just saw that in light of the revelation he received from God that his writings were so incomparably lesser. Anyhow, I have listed his arguments and the e word has nothing to do with any of them. I would like for you to point out a problem in the arguments rather than simply asserting that they don’t work.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber: The elephant picture is cool. Aquinas never denonuced his work he just saw that in light of the revelation he received from God that his writings were so incomparably lesser. Anyhow, I have listed his arguments and the e word has nothing to do with any of them. I would like for you to point out a problem in the arguments rather than simply asserting that they don’t work.

Hi cc42. Yes, I’m aware that it wasn’ a denouncement. What a remarkable thing he must have seen though, to be able to say that about such a prodigous, time consuiming, and arduos work! And if you have read other statements I’ve made about his work, you will know that I see them as having relative value, some of it great.

I know also that the e word has nothing to do with them. That was a backhanded remark about what’s allowed on here and what’s not.

As for arguing about Aquinas’ merits, many haver done that and succeeded in pointing out defects. My assesment was in post #13 above and other places on other threads:

Yes, the point being that God is not the result of a line of logic, and cannot be either the object of such, nor contained in such. That said, the kind of IQ that is often measured is of a particular variety and usually culturally biased. So “reason” doesn’t include other intelligences that may pretain. And there is the factor that God is transcendent, so if there is a way to perceive God, it must be beyond the mind as we ordinarily “use” it. So proofs are pius attempts, at best, to get someone to pay attention to something you believe, and not know. As Walt Whitman said, “I and mine do not convince by argument, similes or rhymes. We convince by our presence”

In other words, to attempt to “prove” Diety by cold dry logic is to present a dead body in the place of the Ineffable.

Trefore Aquinas’ “proofs,” however brilliant asn serving those who are already in the clutches of belief, do not serve as functional proofs in the sense that a geometric ot physics theorem might be proof, as relative a matter as those might be. Intellection is intellection, and does not accomodate any actual pointing to God unless one has had such an experience as did Aquinas near his end. And then no proof is needed.

What I’m saying, essentialy, is that unless you can see for yourself what lies beyond the limitations of discursive mind, you have no authority or expereince on which to lay arguments for anything ineffable. and if you ahve had such an experience, you are perfectly willing to burn the Sutras, the Bible, or your own work, as a signe of the ridiculousness of trying to encapsulate the acutrality of a direct perception in the limits of ink and paper, or any sort of human communication whatsoever, except as an indicator that you saw something life-changing.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber: The elephant picture is cool. Aquinas never denonuced his work he just saw that in light of the revelation he received from God that his writings were so incomparably lesser. Anyhow, I have listed his arguments and the e word has nothing to do with any of them. I would like for you to point out a problem in the arguments rather than simply asserting that they don’t work.

Ijust read in another thread that Fakename says “Aquinas called the proof for God a proof of fact but not a proof of reasoned fact.” Is this so? If yes, what does that mean to you?

 

[JDaniel]

No, there is no reasoning that proves any god’s existence. Aquinas’ five ways are repetitious and fundamentally flawed, as are all supposed proofs for gods’ existence.

Wanstonian:

What are the proofs for matter? Or, space?

God bless,
jd