Aquinus's five reasons that prove god

[Gaber]

Perhaps the question of identity can be a part of metaphysics in the context of essence, form, change, and being.

Are you the same person you was a second ago?

The sense of “I” remains unchanging. What constitutes “me” is changing from moment to moment.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The sense of “I” remains unchanging. What constitutes “me” is changing from moment to moment.

The volume of I changes.

 

[cc42]

Gaber:

You seem to be recommending Buddhist type thinking to me, but I don’t think that that really deals with the issue. I obviously don’t reject consciousness like materialists of today tend to, but I don’t accept some Eastern notion on the matter either.

 

[Gaber]

Gaber:

You seem to be recommending Buddhist type thinking to me, but I don’t think that that really deals with the issue. I obviously don’t reject consciousness like materialists of today tend to, but I don’t accept some Eastern notion on the matter either.

Catholicism is an Eastern notion on the matter, yes?

 

[cc42]

Eastern? I don’t think so that would mean a more immaterialist understanding of the mind I would think, the Church would traditionally not adopt that position.

 

[ProLepanto]

The ‘unmoved mover’ argument is not fundamentally flawed. Infinite regression is a logical absurdity, and any time it is broken down for digestion, those who do not want to acknowledge the truth resort to lines such as ‘what is infinity’, ‘it is too abstract’, or ‘that’s just wrong’.

Spot on. The reason why these pseudo intellectuals immediately attack the notion of theologically related proofs is because most haven’t really read them, nor want to do the work.

Now mind you, I never truly got passed Aquinas’s 1st of the five, but from the best I could tell they really weren’t independent proofs. That is to say, they were still really just predicated on the unmoved mover.
No?

 

[Gaber]

Eastern? I don’t think so that would mean a more immaterialist understanding of the mind I would think, the Church would traditionally not adopt that position.

Interesting how you phrase that. Is not the “Founder” of the Church Middle Eastern? Are not the Abrahamic religions Middle Eastern? Isn’t it true the if Paul didn’t win his argument with Peter, the first Pope, (I wonder if he thought of himself that way) Christianity would have remained a mission very largely to the Jews? And I would add that the esoteric aspects of some religions and philosophies in the region had much more of an “immaterialist understanding of the mind.” Sufism, eg and the Cabala itself. That is, if I take your meaning of “immaterialist correctly? And Faber-Kaiser lays out an interesting argument that Jesus eventually ended up in Tibet. Very doubtful, but a great story, I would also think that Jesus had some exposure to the Mystery schools in Egypt. Maybe He went back in those :lost years.” And some of His statements have congruency with the non dualist tradition of India as well. Perhaps, even if some of the possibilities I point out are not so, we underestimate how Eastern our Church is in its origins? Taking it to Rome and time are what made it appear as it is today, yes? What if the seat of the Church had remained in Jerusalem?

 

[User124]

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.

Hush, they are the best ways to a level that any amateur atheist would easily disprove them

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Hush, they are the best ways to a level that any amateur atheist would easily disprove them

I disagree completely, and it’s simply wrong to say that they’re “easy” to disprove. It took over almost 1000 years for serious objections to be raised, and the proofs have a large following among philosophers today.

 

[ReapReason]

I disagree completely, and it’s simply wrong to say that they’re “easy” to disprove. It took over almost 1000 years for serious objections to be raised, and the proofs have a large following among philosophers today.

The Objections raised tend to be based on a flawed approach to knowledge/epistemology, and a misguided understanding of the authority of science and the context in which it operates. They clearly have a warped understanding of what metaphysics is and the epistemological grounds on which it operates.

I think the people on this forum who merely assert error, have an agenda that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the arguments. They hope that if they say it enough times and quote a scientist then it will become the consensus. The power of suggestion and veiled arguments from authority sometimes works on a lazy mind; but they are largely parroting their favorite atheist philosophers without really understanding the debate or the arguments involved. This is also true of some Catholics on here who try to use one of the five ways in a debate and yet fail to grasp the essence of what actually makes the arguments successful. Thus when their interpretation of the five ways gets refuted, the illusion ensues that Aquinas is therefore defeated.

If the only goal is to brainwash people, then one does not need to defeat Aquinas directly. One need only create the appearance that the arguments are outdated and not worth serious investigation. One need only complicate matters in order to drive a lazy thinker away from the truth. Hence straw-men and red herrings.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

For the skeptics and non-believers on this thread we have Part 1 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the ways of coming to a knowledge of God, his existence and his natrue. Included in these " ways " would certainly be the " reasons " given by Thomas and others. I could display the information but you are all grown now so I will just include the link. Catholics should know that coming to know the existence of God by the natual light of reason is a De Fide teaching and cannot be rejected by any Catholic in good standing ( i.e. a Catholic practicing the faith in good conscience). There is a lot of huffing and puffing going on in this thread which is out of place for Catholics and shows ignorance and lack of sincerity on the part of certain non-Catholics. Spiking the road may seem like great fun but certainly isn’t charitable.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P9.HTM

 

[billcu1]

The Objections raised tend to be based on a flawed approach to knowledge/epistemology, and a misguided understanding of the authority of science and the context in which it operates. They clearly have a warped understanding of what metaphysics is and the epistemological grounds on which it operates.

I think the people on this forum who merely assert error, have an agenda that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the arguments. They hope that if they say it enough times and quote a scientist then it will become the consensus. The power of suggestion and veiled arguments from authority sometimes works on a lazy mind; but they are largely parroting their favorite atheist philosophers without really understanding the debate or the arguments involved. This is also true of some Catholics on here who try to use one of the five ways in a debate and yet fail to grasp the essence of what actually makes the arguments successful. Thus when their interpretation of the five ways gets refuted, the illusion ensues that Aquinas is therefore defeated.

If the only goal is to brainwash people, then one does not need to defeat Aquinas directly. One need only create the appearance that the arguments are outdated and not worth serious investigation. One need only complicate matters in order to drive a lazy thinker away from the truth. Hence straw-men and red herrings.

My biggest trouble in understanding Aquinus is that I don’t have a really good background in Aristotlean philosophy. And Aquinus uses Aristotle’s terms like “species” “genus” and so one. But that’s my handicap. Aristotle also disagreed much with Plato on things. Plato said the universe was created through a dodecahedron. For all we know for the sake of what Plato’s argument was he’s probably right.

…some Catholics on here who try to use one of the five ways in a debate and yet fail to grasp the essence of what actually makes the arguments successful.

That needs to be corrected.

Bill

 

[JDaniel]

It is easy enough to google the complete unabridged description. These proofs have been discussed for centuries. I attended jesuit h.s. and college and had exposure to Thomas’ proofs in fairly concentrated form, but, at the end of the day, it always seemed to me that these proofs boil down to one simple argument which I don’t find all that persuasive. The argument is that there can’t be an infinite regression. Somewhere the buck stops and where it stops is a person called god.

Will:

Too bad you did not attend a good Catholic college after h.s. God prevented that, for some reason unexplainable to us.

Altogether, in my view,this simply reduces to the proposition that there must be an “ultimate principle” accounting for “esse”. This actually isn’t that profound of an insight, in my judgment. Perhaps as we learn more about the quantum it may be so that there is one single defining principle which accounts for what there is. Who can say really?

As you will no doubt recall, there was a simple example that used to be given which, while not extending infinitely back, permitted us the luxury of understanding what St. Thomas meant. It was the story of the boy who was pushing a stone along a walk-way with a stick. Obviously, the stone is moved by the stick and the stick is moved by the boy’s hand, while the boy’s hand is moved by the boy. Simple enough. But, is that all there is? Is that where it stops: at the boy?

From there it gets more complicated and more difficult to put into a parsimonious, yet fully explanatory description. From the boy’s hand we go to the boy’s forearm and attendant muscles, from there to the boy’s upper arm and attendant muscles, from there to the boy’s should and attendant muscles. from there to the boy’s torso and attendant muscles, from there to the boy’s hips and attendant muscles, from there to the boy’s legs and attendant muscles, from there to his feet and attendant muscles, then to the attendant nerves going back to the brain, then to the gastric system which provides the energy required by the nerves and muscles to operate, then from the brain to the prior intentions of the boy to take the stick and move the stone, from there to the tissues, atoms and quantum particles set into motion, and this could go on and on. Intentions, desires, birth, care, formation, food matter for energy, hydrogen and oxygen for transport, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen, for replacement of and expulsion of problematic gases, etc., etc. Amalgamations of atoms into elements. Amalgamations of quantum particles into atoms. (As you can no doubt see, I’ve left out countless other pieces of the overall puzzle.)

It’s interesting to me that we actually believe that it is us doing what we seem to do. It is interesting to me that matter - the amalgamation of quantum, dimensionless particles into the phantasms we believe to be physical things - are actually real to us. That what we sense are essentially holograms we believe. It is interesting to me that we can’t create or destroy matter. It is interesting to me that neither can the universe. It’s interesting to me that the universe expands as it does (or, seems so to us). It’s interesting to me that all of it is really not any different - in its moment to moment quantum projection - than our little boy, moving the stone along the walkway - extending to him through a process of countless ‘chance’.

If only a few ‘chance’ events had failed to take place, if only a countable number in a countless and infinite sea of chance occurrences, had not taken place, this reality would be un-perceived.

Chance, not homogeneity, but chance. Chance with a deck of universe (or larger) proportions. Chance with preposterous odds times a preposterous number. It’s preposterous to think that matter did it. It’s preposterous to think that space did it, unless Space is not what we think it to be. But, we like to define “space” using a negative word. ‘Space’, we say, is extension - between bodies, I presume. ‘Space’ is not a medium - it is merely an extension - an absolute absence, the proverbial philosophical nothingness.

Aquinas, after Aristotle, thought of space as a mathematical entity, as the sum of the extensions of all of the bodies of the universe. But, we tend to think of it as some kind of medium - which, for Physics, it is. It is that where quantum stuff resides. But, this just creates another problem: if it is not a medium, in every sense of that word, then it is “nothingness,” and no thing can have “place.” So, we have to come to terms that space is not a quantum ‘foam’.

God bless,
jd