Dawkins' argument against the first 3 Proofs by St. Thomas Aqunias

[adawgj]

It’s amazing how people talk about Aquinas and his proofs as if he just wrote them yesterday.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is very simple. Do we have an actual separated existence? No. This means that we seize to exist in absence of God hence we are not separable from God as head is not separable from Body. How you could prove that what animate you is not God but you? Where is the boundary which separate you from God? This boundary does not exist hence we are confused God’s heads.

“We?”

How would YOU know that?

 

[Bahman]

“We?”

How would YOU know that?

I am making a simple argument. Is there any line separating us from God so we can sustain our existence? No, in your philosophy. Hence, we are one separated with delusion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am making a simple argument. Is there any line separating us from God so we can sustain our existence? No, in your philosophy. Hence, we are one separated with delusion.

I would call that separation, “the cloud of unknowing,” precisely because the reach of my consciousness, I am certain, is limited.

You believe your current state of consciousness is at its absolute extent and the only reason for thinking anything lies beyond that is delusion?

Let me think on that…

 

[Bahman]

I would call that separation, “the cloud of unknowing,” precisely because the reach of my consciousness, I am certain, is limited.

You believe your current state of consciousness is at its absolute extent and the only reason for thinking anything lies beyond that is delusion?

Let me think on that…

Let me expand this a bit as I see that you note the problem. Lets see if we could agree on these facts and definitions:

A) Awareness does happen in consciousness
B) Consciousness is the ability to experience and affect metal states
C) Awareness is direct knowledge that something exists based on experience
D) Self-awareness is deduced knowledge that something exists based on experience
E) Existence is nothing more than a mode of experience or it has an essence

Lets start from (E). By this I mean that what is there is temporal and does not exist at the moment of experience. Proof is very simple: Consider a system with exist in state of S. S can cause S’ if the system is subject to change yet S and S’ cannot coexist meaning that S must vanishes before S’ takes place which is problematic since non-existence cannot cause anything, hence the awareness of state of S must exist in consciousness which this can cause state S’. This means that what is there cannot possibly have any essence since something which has an essence is not subject to destruction.

Lets discuss (D) now. What do really mean with I am? It means that there exist an awareness which belongs to the person where we assume that it is unique and different from other persons. What is the person? That is the tricky part yet the sole awareness can not provide a proper justification for this. Why? Because the very basic thing that we can assign Iness to is consciousness and not awareness. Lets think of a model in which consciousness has layers by which I mean there exist different persons each in different layer of consciousness. This means that another person can be aware of what I am aware because of being in higher layer of consciousness. I cannot find any argument neither have any evidence to falsify this. This means that Iness is an illusion and we are one separated with false idea, delusion. We might be separated conscious beings but consciousness is an irreducible thing then the question is how an irreducible thing can take form. By irreducible I mean that consciousness cannot be derived from other thing, otherwise we are not ourselves.

And now we can discuss the Thomas philosophy and the problem within. He believed that the act of existence/consciousness is sustained by creation by an external agent so called God. This means that consciousness is an illusionary thing hence the sense of Iness.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is very simple. Do we have an actual separated existence? No.

Wrong. God is an entirely separate being. Thomas Aquinas has proven that. If you are going to say that we and God are somehow one, you must prove that, you can’t just declare it. We have a human nature, composed of matter and form. And God is no where to be found in us as a part of us… We would be aware of it if he were there.

He is in us however, but in a spiritual way, but not as a part of us. He is in us, keeping us alive, even inspiring us, nudging us to do the right thing and avoid the evil. He can even give us a feeling of his peace, a sense that all is well.

This means that we seize to exist in absence of God hence we are not separable from God as head is not separable from Body.

Wrong again. It is true that God guides us, sustains us, inspires us, created us. But that does not mean that he is a part of us or that we are a part of him. God operates freely wherever he chooses without mixing his being with any other being.

How you could prove that what animate you is not God but you? Where is the boundary which separate you from God? This boundary does not exist hence we are confused God’s heads.

Thomas Aquinas has proven it. Don’t you think we would be aware of it if we were " physically " united to God? The boundary which separates me from God is my nature, I am perfectly aware of who I am. I have no direct knowledge of God, he is not " controlling my mind, my self awareness. " If he was a part of me I would be conscious of it.

And what makes you think you are God? Because that is what you are saying!

Linus2nd