Good Books on, and in refutation of, Atheism

[Wesrock]

Right - The First Cause argument is a Deist argument. Please elaborate on how it promotes a “theist” argument. It is literally in the definition of Deism.

Given that the argument demonstrates a conserving cause and not a creating-but-non-interfering cause, it’s a Theist argument.

This gets into what your definition of an ‘event’ is. From a philosophical standpoint - and physics - if you have “true nothing”, call it “null”, then nothing can happen. But in terms of reality, there is no ‘null’. Even the vacuum has statistical properties. And give the properties of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum, then yes, things can “appear” for no ‘cause’. Perhaps “reason” may be a better word. But the fact remains, in quantum mechanics, in our reality, things can appear for no reason, at least at the quantum level.

I guess you could say that the “vacuum” and it’s 'associated quantum statistical properties" IS GOD. In that case, God causes even these quantum effects. But again - what are you accomplishing if you are defining “God” as “the probability field in the reality vacuum causing quantum fluctuations.”

Thomism understands causality to be broader than events. Substances or things are caused. Generally for any thing there is understood to be a material cause, an efficient cause, a formal cause, and a final cause. Quantum fluctuations occur in a medium, and if it’s simply in the nature of that medium to exhibit quantum fluctuations, that is sufficient. It’s not a concern of finding a mechanical event trigger. Thomist causality is more about ontological dependency, not just events.

Your premise:
the First Cause is not just the initiator of this universe, but the cause of all moments and things of reality other than itself

By DEFINITION, your use of the term ‘other’ creates the fallacy of special pleading. This is a common refutation for many “theistic” proofs. When you say things like “everything has a beginning, EXCEPT God”, or “everything has a cause, OTHER THAN God”, your proof IMMEDIATELY fails. The reason being that special pleading can apply to ANY aspect. For example, I can simply say that the “universe has no cause” or the “universe has no beginning”. Logically it makes no difference if “God” IS “the universe”.

That’s not the premise, that’s the conclusion. I asked you to provide the premise I am guilty of using special pleading on.

Very relevant. The proofs you reference all require the concept of a “beginning”. If universe creation is ‘infinite’, and universes are created all the time, there is no need for a “first” cause. I know it is hard to get your head around this, but this is how reality appears to be.

This is false. None of the proofs I reference assume a beginning. That’s not up for debate. Thomas Aquinas did not feel that he could support the universe having a beginning as a starting premise, so he did not make it a premise at all. None of the Five Ways make any reference to the start of the universe/creation. They are only concerned with any given thing in the here and now.

 

[Wesrock]

The problem here is that if you state that God created the universe out of no pre-existing medium, then the concept of causality no longer applies. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Causality REQUIRES a pre-existing medium. That’s in the definition. The proof is thus invalid.

“Causality REQUIRES a pre-existing medium” is a metaphysical assertion that you have not supported, nor is that restricted frame of causality the framework that Aquinas was working in.

Your now referring to ontological proofs of God, which are even more perilous than first cause proofs. Ontological proofs are bad news because they just as easily prove God DOESN’T exist. Most theists avoid them.

It follows from a posteriori demonstration, not a priori ontological argument.

Again - you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you want to say God (or his creation) is not bounded by the laws of causality, you can then not use causality to prove God exists.

Nowhere do I maintain or use “everything has a cause” as a premise for an argument or as a notion of causality.

No, but it doesn’t PROVE omnipotence. If you define God as omnipotent, then the proof does not accomplish what it sets out to do.

The definition of omnipotence I provided follows from the cosmological arguments used by Aquinas, which don’t appeal to the scale of the universe.

If you define omnipotence as “having the power to cause all real and possibly real things” then clearly the proof fails because all possible things don’t exist. You’ve taken a step back here.

There’s no reason something which is omnipotent need create all possibly real things, merely that it have the power to do so, which is demonstrated by the cosmological arguments.

 

[LateCatholic]

And you just unveiled yourself as someone who isn’t truly familiar with the arguments, since all of them have no concern with whether or not there is a start to the universe but with the necessity of God at any here and now.

Not sure I was clear. The argument LITERALLY defines God as the first cause, of which all further events DO NOT REQUIRE HIS EXISTENCE. This is in the proof itself. This cannot be argued. The proof literally says that WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED, God must have existed.
The proof in no way states or in any way implies God exists today in the here and now. He certainly could, but the proof not only doesn’t say he does, it also IMPLIES he has not in any way interacted with the universe since he caused it.
in fact, some philosophers believe that if God DID interact with the universe since he was created, he invalidates the proof. So for the proof to be valid, he MUST NOT interact with the universe. Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical - God must of course exist to invalidate the proof. But it is interesting to note that if you want the first cause proof to be valid, you have to deny God’s place in the universe in terms of Christianity.

the Prime Mover must be immutable, eternal, that there can only be one, omnipotence, omniscient, perfectly good, has a will, and is constantly conserving reality.

But none of that follows from the proof you quoted. The nice thing about the proof is that it is nicely summed up in a few sentences, like you did. And we can discuss it. Now you are saying that the proof (if I read further) also proves God is “good” (and etc etc). There’s no point in digressing because you haven’t laid any foundation for that.

But the point remains, and as yet unchallenged, that there is nothing in your initial statement proving “God” is nothing more than energy fluctuations randomly exceeding a potential energy threshold. In other words, just as a butterfly landing on a precipitous rock on a cliff could cause a massive avalanche, so could a simple constructive wave interference peak cause the big bang. Like I said, you could say since the ‘butterfly’ exists, that’s God. Or the rock is God. Or a combination thereof. That’s up to you.
But like I said, it is not satisfying.

 

[LateCatholic]

One, none of the arguments have “everything as a cause” as a premise.

Direct quote from you:

the cause of all moments and things of reality

I don;t think I even have to respond.

It’s true that if all the bricks are rectangular that the wall can’t be assumed to be rectangular. However, if all the bricks are red the wall certainly will be red.

This is theory of logic. It is a fallacy to assume that attributes of the parts are attributes of the whole. This isn’t an opinion, it’s rules of logic. We are talking PROOFS here. The first cause proof is fallacious because it assumes attributes of a part apply to the whole.
If you want to say, “Oh but it does”, that’s fine, but it is NO LONGER a proof. It’s an opinion. Seriously, this is a known refutation.

the argument doesn’t concern itself with the universe as a whole

Again, direct quote…

First Cause is not just the initiator of this universe

Some of your responses can be refuted by simply quoting your own text.

To wrap up: Do not get riled up if you think I am implying God does not exist. The point I am making is that the Thomas proofs are interesting but are easily knocked down. You will not win an argument with an atheist. There are better approaches.

 

[LateCatholic]

I asked you to provide the premise I am guilty of using special pleading on.

A premise is “God has no cause”.
The conclusion is “God exists”.
Another premise is “Everything has a cause”.

Thus special pleading. Again, I’m not stating an opinion here. This is logic.

 

[Wesrock]

Not sure I was clear. The argument LITERALLY defines God as the first cause, of which all further events DO NOT REQUIRE HIS EXISTENCE. This is in the proof itself.

Which proof. Please show me. This simply is not true. That’s not even what he means by “First Cause.” If you have a meeting, the head of that meeting is first in priority. It doesn’t mean he arrived to the meeting first or was born first.

This cannot be argued. The proof literally says that WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED, God must have existed.

That’s not how his proofs work. You have read other people’s mischaracterizations of his proofs and take those to be correct. It simply is not true. It may be clearer if you read an example of the Prime Mover argument that I wrote in my own words: The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

The proof in no way states or in any way implies God exists today in the here and now. He certainly could, but the proof not only doesn’t say he does, it also IMPLIES he has not in any way interacted with the universe since he caused it.

This is simply not true.

in fact, some philosophers believe that if God DID interact with the universe since he was created, he invalidates the proof. So for the proof to be valid, he MUST NOT interact with the universe. Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical - God must of course exist to invalidate the proof. But it is interesting to note that if you want the first cause proof to be valid, you have to deny God’s place in the universe in terms of Christianity.

What are you even talking about? This has nothing to do with the Five Ways.

the Prime Mover must be immutable, eternal, that there can only be one, omnipotence, omniscient, perfectly good, has a will, and is constantly conserving reality.

But none of that follows from the proof you quoted. The nice thing about the proof is that it is nicely summed up in a few sentences, like you did. And we can discuss it. Now you are saying that the proof (if I read further) also proves God is “good” (and etc etc). There’s no point in digressing because you haven’t laid any foundation for that.

See the previously linked argument from motion topic. I made no full demonstration here.

But the point remains, and as yet unchallenged, that there is nothing in your initial statement proving “God” is nothing more than energy fluctuations randomly exceeding a potential energy threshold. In other words, just as a butterfly landing on a precipitous rock on a cliff could cause a massive avalanche, so could a simple constructive wave interference peak cause the big bang. Like I said, you could say since the ‘butterfly’ exists, that’s God. Or the rock is God. Or a combination thereof. That’s up to you.
But like I said, it is not satisfying.

Further demonstrating you have no idea what the premises of the five ways are.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I asked you to provide the premise I am guilty of using special pleading on.

A premise is “God has no cause”.
The conclusion is “God exists”.
Another premise is “Everything has a cause”.

Thus special pleading. Again, I’m not stating an opinion here. This is logic.

“God has no cause” is not a premise of the arguments. Try again.

 

[LateCatholic]

None of the Five Ways make any reference to the start of the universe/creation. They are only concerned with any given thing in the here and now.

The term “FIRST CAUSE” is literally the subject of our discussion!
You want to use the term “first” but deny the term “start”?
You’ll have to elaborate because you’ve lost all semblance of coherent thought.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

None of the Five Ways make any reference to the start of the universe/creation. They are only concerned with any given thing in the here and now.

The term “FIRST CAUSE” is literally the subject of our discussion!
You want to use the term “first” but deny the term “start”?
You’ll have to elaborate because you’ve lost all semblance of coherent thought.

You might understand the term if you actually understood the argument or even the premises of the argument. All you have are a bunch of straw men in your head. First in order of temporality has little to nothing to do with the Five Ways. It’s first in order of dependency, itself being independent. And we’ve been muddling things up a bit, so speaking from of the five ways, the argument from motion leads to a Prime Mover, the argument from causality leads to a First Cause, the argument from Contingency leads to a Necessary Being, and so on. Later demonstrably all the same. The Argument From Motion topic I linked concerns the, well, argument from motion (change) only.

 

[Wesrock]

Just for the record, I’m heading to bed now. I was able to put a lot of time into this the last couple of days. Ideally I’ll have some time this weekend.

 

[Wesrock]

One further addendum, all of Aquinas’ arguments are based on hierarchical series, not linear series. A First Cause as you understand the term is not something Aquinas thought he could prove from that angle, as he held that linear series could go on for an infinite regress without issue. You really don’t understand his argument at all.

Honestly off now. Closing the laptop. Not going to look at my phone.

 

[LateCatholic]

in fact, some philosophers believe that if God DID interact with the universe since he was created, he invalidates the proof. So for the proof to be valid, he MUST NOT interact with the universe. Of course, this is somewhat paradoxical - God must of course exist to invalidate the proof. But it is interesting to note that if you want the first cause proof to be valid, you have to deny God’s place in the universe in terms of Christianity.

OK, just to clarify this. Let’s discuss it in terms of “prime mover”, Let’s use the analogy of billiard balls. I see one moving in the here and now, to use your term. Well, it must have been ‘moved’ by another, some time ago. And that one must have been moved, and so on and on, a long chain until we come to the PRIME mover. the very first, the start of the universe. Let’s say, for discussion, the chain is 100 billiard balls long.

For the PROOF to stand, this chain of moving billiard balls MUST BE pristine. If someone, say, ‘bumped’ the fourteenth ball, then all bets are off. The PROOF fails. Think in terms of logic theory. In other words, if the chain of events is ‘contaminated’ by other actors (God, for one), I can no longer say the 100th ball got to where it ended up BECAUSE of the prime mover. It got to where it was because of the intermediate mover.

Why am I pointing this out? To show how useless and invalid these proofs are. For this proof to be valid in terms of logic, God can never interact with the world, and the entire premise of Christianity is false.
Long story short, if these proofs are the foundation of your faith, you’re in trouble.

 

[LateCatholic]

“God has no cause” is not a premise of the arguments. Try again.

Then who caused God. I refute the argument by simply stating the cause of God is greater than God himself.

Trust me, “God has no cause” is foundation to these arguments. Call it what you want, “unmoved mover”, “first cause”, “prime moved”, etc. Same thing.

 

[LateCatholic]

First in order of temporality has little to nothing to do with the Five Ways. It’s first in order of dependency, itself being independent.

Time’s arrow. Entropy. Second law of thermodynamics.
Well known physical property of our universe that dependency and time are not only related but unidirectional.

Try proving this:

X depends on Y, but X occurs before Y.

Good luck.

 

[LateCatholic]

Aquinas’ arguments are based on hierarchical series, not linear series

This makes no difference to my critiques, and I never claim of ‘linearity’, except in the billiards example, which of course could be extended easily to a ‘hierarchy’ of balls. Explain why a hierarchy of events/causes challenges any one of my refutations.

You really don’t understand his argument at all.

It seems like all your responses are now “I’m still right. You just don’t understand.”

I’m willing to listen. What don’t I understand? Keep in mind all my refutations are standard critiques of the Aquinas arguments. There are several more. I didn’t even use the most common and obvious one - “Then who caused God”?

 

[LateCatholic]

Further demonstrating you have no idea what the premises of the five ways are.

Once again, the discussion devolves to “You just don’t get it”. You have not challenged any of my refutations, mostly just responding with comments like “that’s not what it means”, following by me quoting your text where you literally use the same term you deny using a few posts later.

I will close with the following - the Five Ways are celebrated not for their validity, but rather they were the first attempt at justifying God’s existence using logic and reason. But as I have demonstrated, and many far more capable philosophers have as well, they fail in many ways. Scientifically. Logically. Even theologically. They have long been refuted and dismissed. Heck, 60%-70% of philosophers are atheists.
As I mentioned above, don’t argue with an atheist. You will lose. My response is that I HOPE God exists, and I truly believe that there is a higher power defined by holistic phenomena. That’s good enough for me, even though all else fails in proving that God exists.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Maybe look into Kaufmann’s “Critique of Religion and Philosophy”

 

[Wesrock]

Good morning. I have not read anyone’s replies since my last post. I do not have time to reply to them, and so if I read them, I’d be mulling them over all day, and I have other things to focus on. I do intend to read them later.

A clarification is needed for Aquinas. There were two types of ordered series that concerned Aquinas:

The first was a linear series, also called an accidentally ordered series (per accidens). Aquinas did not believe an infinite linear series was self-contradicting. It could stretch to infinity without issue.

An hierarchical series, also called an essentially ordered seried (per se) was different. Continued movement required a mover to continue acting. The movee's movement was constantly derived from higher members in the series. (Movement, here, can indicate any change, or any potency being actualized by another). It was an hierarchical series that he said could not run to an infinite regress as it would be self-contradictory.

Further, Aquinas did not think he could assume the universe had a temporal beginning as a premise. This should be obvious, since he thought linear series could proceed to infinity without contradiction.

To suggest that Aquinas’ proofs therefore were about following a line of accidental causes back to the beginning of time, then, is just absurd. He did not believe that could be demonstrated from philosophy.

Aquinas, following Aristotle, showed that any particular substance, in order to be explained, had an accidental efficient cause (explainable by a linear series which he could not assume had a beginning as a premise) and an essential efficient cause (explainable by an hierarchical series). Any given thing at any given moment had a first cause. How the Five Ways are usually quoted stops here. Aristotle held that there could be multiple first causes, where the buck stops for explaining the essential efficient cause here and now. Aquinas would go further and demonstrate (by a simple reductio, among other ways) that all of these must have the same identity and be the same thing, thus there can only be one for all things at all moments in time. A conserving cause. Whether reality is infinite or finite, any moment of it is dependent upon this one first cause.

This post here is not a demonstration. I’ve linked my Argument From Motion topic plenty. That’s my attempted demonstration in my own words. This post is only to clarify that Aquinas’ arguments are not about tracing accidentallly ordered causes back to a temporal beginning. None of them are. He did not think that could be demonstrated from philosophy alone. They’re all around hierarchical series.

It’s furthermore obvious if you bother to read Aquinas that he never used “everything has a cause” as a premise or conclusion, and there’s no special pleading in the premises he used.

I’m happy to debate whether an hierarchical series can go to an infinite regress, about essential efficient causes, about the premises he actually used, about what follows from the premises if accepted. But some accusations are patently false.

(I wrote this up on my phone’s memo pad first. Some bad formatting copied over, which I think I’ve corrected.)

 

[Wesrock]

“Darwin claimed that evolution was started by aliens visiting the Earth!”

“Um, not he didn’t.”

“Yes he did!”

“No… he didn’t. That’s just false. It’s nothing to do with what he said.”

“But he did!”

That’s what it boils down to.

 

[IWantGod]

I think 99 percent of a Thomists job is pointing out all the straw-men that their opponents keep knocking down.