Is all logic circular?

[davidv]

If you accept all of his premises, and are willing to over look the fact that the God he describes doesn’t match the God people actually believe in, sure.

I only have to overlook this preposterous description of Catholics who strive to be disciples of Jesus.

As you can probably guess, I don’t.

So, what gives you the lock on truth?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

I only have to overlook this preposterous description of Catholics who strive to be disciples of Jesus.

I didn’t describe Catholics who strive to be disciples of Jesus in any way.

But since you mention Jesus, he is a savior god who was born, suffered, and died. That is certainly not an unmoved mover or an efficient cause, in fact, it’s at odds with it.

So, what gives you the lock on truth?

I don’t. However, if someone responds to a comment I made with, “And St Thomas’ five ways demonstrate that God’s necessity is a logical conclusion…,” I’m entitled to refute it.

 

[davidv]

I didn’t describe Catholics who strive to be disciples of Jesus in any way.

But since you mention Jesus, he is a savior god who was born, suffered, and died. That is certainly not an unmoved mover or an efficient cause, in fact, it’s at odds with it.

Based on what?

I don’t. However, if someone responds to a comment I made with, “And St Thomas’ five ways demonstrate that God’s necessity is a logical conclusion…,” I’m entitled to refute it.

You did not refute it. The logic was not shown to be flawed. Nor were the premises shown to be false.

 

[TheAtheist]

Based on what?

Aristotle’s Metaphysics and “One the Heavens” describes the Prime Mover that rotates the Outermost sphere of the Heavens as a immaterial entity that only thinks about the best thing in existence - itself.

The Cosmology outlined by Aristotle with the Heavens rotating as a set of concentric spheres in emulation of the Prime Mover (since by Graeco-Roman philosophical standards, circular movement is considered to be somehow a perfection)'s contemplation of itself…

…it kind of robs a sense of agency from the Judaeo-Christian conception of God.

In a certain sense, “creation” becomes a kind of…off-handed incidental.

You don’t have to take my word for it though - Thomas Aquinas was influenced by the thought of Moses Maimonides who himself pulled from Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, and a whole host of Neoplatonized Aristotleans.

So we have the Jewish-Christian-Muslim literati accounted for - all criticized by those within each religion that held a strong suspicion of philosophy for the problem of robbing your God of its sense of agency.

PS: This is Precisely how the Orthodox Christians (or rather a subset of Orthodox Christians) tend to criticize Catholics → you apparently were seduced by Pagan Philosophy which made you accumulate a variety of errors (etc. etc… the result of course is that they invoke themselves as the true bearers of Christian tradition)

 

[davidv]

Aristotle’s Metaphysics and “One the Heavens” describes the Prime Mover that rotates the Outermost sphere of the Heavens as a immaterial entity that only thinks about the best thing in existence - itself.

The Cosmology outlined by Aristotle with the Heavens rotating as a set of concentric spheres in emulation of the Prime Mover (since by Graeco-Roman philosophical standards, circular movement is considered to be somehow a perfection)'s contemplation of itself…

…it kind of robs a sense of agency from the Judaeo-Christian conception of God.

In a certain sense, “creation” becomes a kind of…off-handed incidental.

You don’t have to take my word for it though - Thomas Aquinas was influenced by the thought of Moses Maimonides who himself pulled from Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, and a whole host of Neoplatonized Aristotleans.

So we have the Jewish-Christian-Muslim literati accounted for - all criticized by those within each religion that held a strong suspicion of philosophy for the problem of robbing your God of its sense of agency.

PS: This is Precisely how the Orthodox Christians (or rather a subset of Orthodox Christians) tend to criticize Catholics → you apparently were seduced by Pagan Philosophy which made you accumulate a variety of errors (etc. etc… the result of course is that they invoke themselves as the true bearers of Christian tradition)

How does this explain why Jesus becoming man is contradictory to God (unmoved mover)?

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Based on what?

You did not refute it. The logic was not shown to be flawed. Nor were the premises shown to be false.

Look up the definitions of unmoved mover. It is by definition incompatible with living a human life.

You gave no defense of the premises. What you assert without justification, I reject without justification.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Aristotle’s Metaphysics and “One the Heavens” describes the Prime Mover that rotates the Outermost sphere of the Heavens as a immaterial entity that only thinks about the best thing in existence - itself.

The Cosmology outlined by Aristotle with the Heavens rotating as a set of concentric spheres in emulation of the Prime Mover (since by Graeco-Roman philosophical standards, circular movement is considered to be somehow a perfection)'s contemplation of itself…

…it kind of robs a sense of agency from the Judaeo-Christian conception of God.

In a certain sense, “creation” becomes a kind of…off-handed incidental.

You don’t have to take my word for it though - Thomas Aquinas was influenced by the thought of Moses Maimonides who himself pulled from Al-Farabi, Al-Kindi, and a whole host of Neoplatonized Aristotleans.

So we have the Jewish-Christian-Muslim literati accounted for - all criticized by those within each religion that held a strong suspicion of philosophy for the problem of robbing your God of its sense of agency.

PS: This is Precisely how the Orthodox Christians (or rather a subset of Orthodox Christians) tend to criticize Catholics → you apparently were seduced by Pagan Philosophy which made you accumulate a variety of errors (etc. etc… the result of course is that they invoke themselves as the true bearers of Christian tradition)

I’m impressed. That’s a very good explanation.

 

[davidv]

Look up the definitions of unmoved mover. It is by definition incompatible with living a human life.

Conveniently ignoring the Jesus is God and man.

You gave no defense of the premises. What you assert without justification, I reject without justification.

Why are they mine to defend? St. Thomas does decent enough job on his own.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Conveniently ignoring the Jesus is God and man.

Why are they mine to defend? St. Thomas does decent enough job on his own.

I’m getting the distinct impression that you don’t really understand Aquinas’ arguments. I am not interested in having both sides of the argument.

 

[TheAtheist]

I’m getting the distinct impression that you don’t really understand Aquinas’ arguments. I am not interested in having both sides of the argument.

The folks who pop up on the Philosophy forum tend to be a varied bunch.

Some tend to fall under the “Apologetic debater” category, where aside from making reference to doctrine and beliefs, the majority of the thread devolves down into logical/rhetorical manuevering. This is equally true of atheists who participate on those threads. I can’t fathom what either side “gets” out of it, but i assume it must be a combination of the thrust of debate/“i feel like i’m doing a task to defend my beliefs.” etc.

Others are students, just starting out and seeking a place where to practice or ask questions. I usually try to be as helpful as possible to them, in matters that I can attest to. They are just kids at the end of the day, still growing and thinking. Some try to shortcut their way to the answer via Wikipedia or some other resources, but a few get out the pencil and paper or tablet i guess in this electronic age, and actually go about doing the hard work. Those are the ones i admire most of all.

But every so often… every so often… CAF picks up a superstar - a few bona fide theologians, philosophy grad student, one or two PhDs, a physicist, etc.

You can tell by the content and quality of their posts. Their… i guess you call it “data sets” in their heads expand beyond a few set topics unlike the Apologetic Debaters.

In that vein, there is in fact a way to answer the issue raised. How believable that Answer is, is up to the reader of course ( the Orthodox Christians tend to think its just a further illustration of Catholic heresy).

I’m just surprised no aspiring Thomist hasn’t jumped in and said it yet.

 

[Wesrock]

Aristotles cosmology is irrelevent to Saint Thomas’ arguments on the unmoved mover. The necessity of such a being is demonstrated based on principles of identity, principle of non-contradiction, and at least weak forms of the principle of sufficient reasons (though Aquinas did not use the term “PSR”.

An unmoved mover is, quite simply, unmoved by his own actions. You are familiar with Newton’s Law that every action has an equal but opposite reaction? Not so in the case of God. The assumption of human nature causes no “movement” of God. The definition of the hypostatic union, two natures, unmixed, united in the one person of Christ, allows for this. One acts from all eternity, the other as a contingent being, but the divine nature is itself unmoved by any change in the person of Jesus. It does not mean that God doesn’t act. Really, a failure to understand this is a failure to stop applying Newtonian physics to this situation.

To barge in here claiming that Catholics have somehow failed to answer this question over the course of 2,000 years of philosophical thought is just patently absurd. The idea that the God arrived at from use of reason is distant and inactive is also a failure to actually grasp what’s actually being stated.

 

[Wesrock]

You’re right. It isn’t circular because the first man’'s second answer is literally the same as his first. He just stated the same proposition twice. See, his second answer is the contraposition of his first. An implication sentence and its contraposition are logically equivalent, and therefore express the same proposition.

I wouldn’t say all logic is circular. But all logic depends on certain things taken for granted not backed by aegument. Eventually there will have to be base premises that both sides agree on. Otherwise nobody will get anywhere. And the method of the logic used to analyze must be decided upon.

Remember, logic is merely a way to analyze arguments. It is a tool of language. Logic itself is a formal, stipulated language we use so we can control the syntax and semantics of language to get at the precise content of an argument and sentences.

It’s a reductio argument. We believe P because ~~P is true (because ~P is a contradiction). My point, though, is that the first man isn’t begging the question by making a statement that is known through itself once you grasp what the terms mean, essentially.

 

[TheAtheist]

Aristotles cosmology is irrelevent to Saint Thomas’ arguments on the unmoved mover. The necessity of such a being is demonstrated based on principles of identity, principle of non-contradiction, and at least weak forms of the principle of sufficient reasons (though Aquinas did not use the term “PSR”.

Take note CuriousCat, this one did his homework.

So i take it from your stance, you are not approaching this from Richard Swineburne’s position? That we should consider the Quinque viæ as 5 separate arguments correct?

If that’s the case - then you are stating that there is no connection whatsoever, in the methods utilized by Aristotle to arrive at his cosmology and those used by Aquinas to tackle Proof 1?

To barge in here claiming that Catholics have somehow failed to answer this question over the course of 2,000 years of philosophical thought is just patently absurd.

You know this is the surprising thing to me. Because the Claim is in fact made…by non-atheists…**specifically by a certain group of people who might just happen to believe in many of the things you believe in but with a rather giant axe to grind against Thomism.
**

The plank I gave CuriousCat isn’t original! Well, yes the words i mine, but the avenue of objection is actually a rather well-worn one. Still used in some circles!

I was kind of expecting someone to give the rather traditional response by this time.

You know there used to be this rather brilliant debater on CAF, Anastasia, but apparently in real life she was a Catholic Theologian. She often used to remark about the need for cross-training at times between Western philosophical methods and Eastern theology.

I’m sure if Hesychios were still around he’d probably advocate the same…well…probably advocate the whole ditching of Western methods.

Ah well - perhaps I just expected too much.

 

[Wesrock]

Take note CuriousCat, this one did his homework.

So i take it from your stance, you are not approaching this from Richard Swineburne’s position? That we should consider the Quinque viæ as 5 separate arguments correct?

If that’s the case - then you are stating that there is no connection whatsoever, in the methods utilized by Aristotle to arrive at his cosmology and those used by Aquinas to tackle Proof 1?

What I’m stating is that the cosmological understanding Aquinas had is irrelevant to whether or not the argument for the prime mover is valid. Any use of outdated cosmological examples were to simply to try to help illustrate the point, not serve as the reason why the argument for the prime mover is true. The argument from motion still follows given an updated cosmology, provided one still accepts such things as the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Law of Excluded Middle, the Law of Identity, and the PSR (at least a weak or mild form such as “all things that come to be have a cause” or “everything that is contingent has a cause”) as universal principles.

I’m a casual Thomist. I don’t just jump over to Wikipedia to answer objections, I’ve been reading various materials for the last year or so and have grown in understanding, but no, I’m not “studied” in any formal sense. I do have a basic foundation I’m working with, though.

So, saying that, I’m not familiar with Richard Swineburne’s position. You’ll have to illuminate me on that one, or at least direct me somewhere. Each of the five arguments is distinct, to a degree, but they all assume the PSR as their basis. Or, if I was to use a tree as a metaphor, the PSR is the trunk, and the branches are the five ways.

 

[TheAtheist]

.I’m a casual Thomist. I don’t just jump over to Wikipedia to answer objections, I’ve been reading various materials for the last year or so and have grown in understanding, but no, I’m not “studied” in any formal sense. I do have a basic foundation I’m working with, though.

Believe me when i say this - You are a Thomist. Ditch the whole casual thing. You are doing the work - that is what counts. Sure there aren’t 5,000 papers with your name on it, and you didn’t have to sit down and write a thesis, author books like Ed Fesner etc. etc. but you are still doing the work.

Just keep on it.

With that said, let’s rewind the tape a second. What was CuriousCat’s objection? His specific objection that started this:

If you accept all of his premises, and are willing to over look the fact that the God he describes doesn’t match the God people actually believe in, sure.

So essentially Thomas Aquinas’ Prime Mover =/= Jesus/God of Abraham-Issac-Jacob

Point to Think on for a Second: Is Thomas Aquinas proof(s) of God really designed to prove the existence of the Judaoe-Christian God? Or is it designed to prove that a God of some sort must exist?

I push the argument forward (because its easy to swat that argument) by using a standard objection utilized by those who get very very nervous by describing God in Aristotlean-inspired terms… hoping for some more interesting conversation in the process.

The “standard fear” if you will,running across all 3 Semitic religions, is that using either Aristotle or Plotinus’ conception(s) to describe God turns God into an Automatic Cause Unaware of anything beyond its existence.

ie: Its not really a Creator at all.

Cue Al-Farabi/Al-Kindi/the Mutazilites/etc getting thrown out of “proper” Islam.
Cue centuries of internal debate within Judaism about Moses Maimonides.
Cue Condenmnations of 1277 in your Church against Aristotle.

But doesn’t this all rest on the idea that the description of Aristotle’s Prime Mover = Aquinas’ Prime Mover?

You’ve already addressed that point to a certain degree, might i make a suggestion?

Remember what CuriousCat said…ok…

So would it be appropriate for me to Make the equation of

Aristotle’s Prime Mover = Aquinas Full Conception of God?

This is why i tossed in Swineburne. He made a case that its inappropriate to try and split up the Five Arguments. That a person would need to take them in as a whole.

I need a good analogy… Ah!

If i were to do that, it would be something like me trying to analyze a House for instance, by only looking at Bricks. Because in that line of thought, i’m making the error of saying “All you need to have a House is Bricks”

ie: House= Bricks.

Is that right?

So if I say something like, describing your God in terms of a function of a Prime Mover, I have exhausted all the qualities/abilities of God…

Does that sound right? Can you thnk of an easy objection?

That’s one way of going at this.

Just always remember - what was CuriousCat asserting?

If you accept all of his premises, and are willing to over look the fact that the God he describes doesn’t match the God people actually believe in, sure.

PS: But there is a way for Curious to modify his argument and save it from the pitfalls… and if he does decide to pursue that, allow him to and sit back and think.

And both of you can be civil about it too.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

For every statement/belief we make, someone could continue to ask "Why is that true?

We can give a reason, then they would say “Why is that the reason.”

We would give a reason for why it is the reason, then they would say “Why is that the reason that it is the reason?”

…and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.

…until one runs out of reasons to prove their statement/belief without begging anymore questions…so they just say “Because it just is.”

For example, we could say “God existed forever.”

"Why?

“Because…he just did.”

Would this mean that all logic at it’s core is circular? And how do we prove something without begging anymore questions?

I think that as long as the guy who is asking the “why” questions is a rational intelligent being, he will stop asking at some point, where he will be able to start a reasoning process by himself. If someone asks you, for instance, “why is it true that you are asking your question?”, what would you respond?

To me, reading your question is enough to know that you are asking a question, and I would not need to ask anyone why the assertion is true. A machine programmed to ask “why” questions would have no reason to stop, but intelligent beings stop at some point.

In subjects like mathematics we stop asking at axioms, because for an intelligent being those initial statements are evident. If when I expose the principle of identity (A=A), someone asks me “why is it true?”, I would not respond “because it is so”. Instead, I would ask him “Do you realize something at all?”

 

[Wesrock]

Believe me when i say this - You are a Thomist. Ditch the whole casual thing. You are doing the work - that is what counts. Sure there aren’t 5,000 papers with your name on it, and you didn’t have to sit down and write a thesis, author books like Ed Fesner etc. etc. but you are still doing the work.

Just keep on it.

With that said, let’s rewind the tape a second. What was CuriousCat’s objection? His specific objection that started this:

So essentially Thomas Aquinas’ Prime Mover =/= Jesus/God of Abraham-Issac-Jacob

Point to Think on for a Second: Is Thomas Aquinas proof(s) of God really designed to prove the existence of the Judaoe-Christian God? Or is it designed to prove that a God of some sort must exist?

I push the argument forward (because its easy to swat that argument) by using a standard objection utilized by those who get very very nervous by describing God in Aristotlean-inspired terms… hoping for some more interesting conversation in the process.

The “standard fear” if you will,running across all 3 Semitic religions, is that using either Aristotle or Plotinus’ conception(s) to describe God turns God into an Automatic Cause Unaware of anything beyond its existence.

ie: Its not really a Creator at all.

Cue Al-Farabi/Al-Kindi/the Mutazilites/etc getting thrown out of “proper” Islam.
Cue centuries of internal debate within Judaism about Moses Maimonides.
Cue Condenmnations of 1277 in your Church against Aristotle.

But doesn’t this all rest on the idea that the description of Aristotle’s Prime Mover = Aquinas’ Prime Mover?

You’ve already addressed that point to a certain degree, might i make a suggestion?

Remember what CuriousCat said…ok…

So would it be appropriate for me to Make the equation of

Aristotle’s Prime Mover = Aquinas Full Conception of God?

This is why i tossed in Swineburne. He made a case that its inappropriate to try and split up the Five Arguments. That a person would need to take them in as a whole.

I need a good analogy… Ah!

If i were to do that, it would be something like me trying to analyze a House for instance, by only looking at Bricks. Because in that line of thought, i’m making the error of saying “All you need to have a House is Bricks”

ie: House= Bricks.

Is that right?

So if I say something like, describing your God in terms of a function of a Prime Mover, I have exhausted all the qualities/abilities of God…

Does that sound right? Can you thnk of an easy objection?

That’s one way of going at this.

Just always remember - what was CuriousCat asserting?

PS: But there is a way for Curious to modify his argument and save it from the pitfalls… and if he does decide to pursue that, allow him to and sit back and think.

And both of you can be civil about it too.

Well, I feel as if you’re essentially trying to lead the argument and that you already know Aquinas’/Thomist’s replies to objections concerning God’s knowledge (indeed, Aquinas anticipated the common objections himself). Everything besides God is contingent, and God is, at the root of it, the cause of all contingent being. Contingent beings are caused at each and every moment by his one eternal Act. God is fully knowledgeable of his own substance and his own action. Since all creation at all times is caused by God’s Act, and God is fully knowledgeable of his Act and Himself, he knows all creation at all times. And unlike us with only an incomplete picture of what will result from our actions, God is fully knowledgeable. The idea that God is distant and unable to know His creation falls apart, because ultimately everything is so intimately dependent on him at all times. He is involved and present by his action and knowledge at every moment.

You ask if the argument from motion gives us a full conception of God? It seems absurd to even ask that. Of course it doesn’t. I would agree with the position of Swinburne, which you stated, in that all of the arguments must be taken as a whole in order to get the best picture of God knowable by reason. However, neither do all five arguments taken together give us a full conception of God. As much as we say we do establish about God in these arguments from reason, God is ultimately unknowable and incomprehensible, as admitted by Saint Thomas himself. We only scratch the surface. Divine revelation gives us far more insight into God, especially as made knowable by and through Jesus Christ, but even then, with natural theology and divine revelation paired together, we don’t approach a full conception of God. Catholics only claim we would have such, insofar as we are able, if granted the glory of the beatific vision.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
With that said, let’s rewind the tape a second. What was CuriousCat’s objection? His specific objection that started this:

So essentially Thomas Aquinas’ Prime Mover =/= Jesus/God of Abraham-Issac-Jacob
{snip}

I understood this, which why I objected. No evidence was presented to support this statement.

The primer mover must be singular, else it is not the prime mover. In other words, there is only on God, no matter how many variations exist in describing Him.

 

[Rhubarb]

It’s a reductio argument. We believe P because ~~P is true (because ~P is a contradiction). My point, though, is that the first man isn’t begging the question by making a statement that is known through itself once you grasp what the terms mean, essentially.

I don’t see a reductio. There’s nothing derived from anything.

I see

First guy: T—>(C&S)

Second guy: Why?

First guy: Because ~(C&S)–>~(T)

This is just contraposition, which is an identical statement to the first one. And it’s totally begging the question. If we put it into argument form, at least.

However, I think the example proves what I said earlier. All logic needs certain basic foundations to get rolling. The “what is known through itself” or “what everyone agrees on”. All arguments eventually rest on some common ground that we just agree on without needing proof. Otherwise we’re not going to get anything done.

 

[Wesrock]

Assume there is at least one triangle with less than or more than three sides (~P). But a triangle with less than or more than three sides is a contradiction. It’s nonsense. It’s as much of a contradiction as a square circle. That is where the reductio comes in. Therefore, if it did not have three sides, it would not be a triangle (~~P). Since ~~P is true, P is true.