My analysis of the First Way

[wanstronian]

its not an assumption, its pretty well known. they are the result of an existent vacuum, they borrow the energy to exist from the vacuum, so to speak, they are also known as “vacuum fluctuations” for this reason. no vacuum, no VP. they also result from interactions of existent particles. ergo, they exist only in that a universe already exists.

Have to confess that I don’t know that much about VPs, but if it’s been proved that they can only exist in an extant universe, then I find it hard to imagine that anybody who values their scientific reputation is still touting them as the reason for the birth of the universe.

the singularity generally assumed in the Big Bang theory

With you now. Okay, so it’s an assumption. Everything is, given that nobody was there at the time! Still not sure how this relates to my question on the ramifications of Aquinas’s proofs though.

im not sure what youre even asking at this point, ithink maybe you read alot more into this phrase than is warranted.

Maybe - it’s starting to look that way. I just don’t understand your ‘ramifications’ comment!

and btw, Aquinas isnt so easily dismissed but let me domonstrate below.

“those who think that Aquinas is easily dismissed on some **scientific basis **tend to miss the ontological ramifications of what he is saying.”

i was refering to the above mistaken notions of being, exhibited in VP, as above.

Yes, but what are the ontological ramifications? I’m assuming you meant ramification as in ‘consequence’ - maybe that isn’t what you meant?

it is impossible in that were it to be the case, no chain could exist. unless every element came into being, self supporting, for no reason which is a violation of the PSR, the basis of the scientific method. it is a POOF! theory, no different than G-ddidit. one might call it itjusthappened. of course the problem being in that a denial of the PSR also denies the scientific method.

Again, because infinity is not truly understood I don’t think one can claim this. Although as it happens, I tend to agree that it seems unlikely. But then my head starts to spin when I consider that there must have been a ‘before…’ I think the biggest problem with the contingency argument is the assertion that the first cause was a sentient being, God. There may have been a first event, but there’s no proof that it was aware of itself, let alone designed and maintained the Universe, and any/all of the other activities commonly attributed to God.

its from the undeniable mathematical odds of Messianic Prophecy. the very reason that the first Christians accepted that Christ was the Messiah. it is unique to Christianity.

And we’ve briefly discussed these odds before - they’re easy to fabricate after the event and ultimately prove nothing. In my opinion.

same answers

in metaphysics,“beings” just means things that “be”, things that exist, so to speak. where did you ever get that idea?

perfection generally means “completeness” G-d as the maximal state of being. the ground state of existence. being complete in that He encompasses all existent things.

one cannnot assign design before it is found, but take the exxample of free will, if it is fake, it must be designed so, if it is real, it must be designed as so. look up “warpspeedpeteys’ proof” for a longer explanation.

and as you can now see, it wasnt so easy as a search on atheist websites makes it seem. though i freely admit that some are more difficult to defend then others.

Disagree with your conclusions. Although some of my objections are down to potential semantic ambiguity, Aquinas is no longer around to clarify exactly what he meant. If “beings” means “things that be,” for example, how come he didn’t stick to the same word? Or it might be Wikipedia’s error, I don’t know. My other points - that his arguments are based on groundless assertions, I stand by.

yes, ive seen them, didnt you deny that you were getting your arguments mainly from atheist websites on another thread? maybe that was someone else, id have too look it up.

No, I did deny it because I don’t do it. Well, not intentionally, anyway - sometimes I stumble across some interesting and sensible stuff when I’m looking for general info on a subject, and there’s no harm in reusing sound arguments. I don’t go hunting for arguments to use. As I stated, my objections above were my own.

you are not, as i showed above, you need to actually research metaphysics and not rely on biased websites, otherwise you wind up thinking things that arent necessarily the case as above.

Possibly, but I think my lack of knowledge of exactly how science tesselates with metaphysics does not have an impact of my recognition of a false premise within a religious (or any other) ‘proof.’

no, i was refering to all the times you simply jumped threads when you couldnt find a counter argument that upheld your cherished belief in atheism.

If I jumped threads, it was because there was clearly no point in continuing. You weren’t accepting anything I was saying, and I didn’t accept what you were saying. It’s not a dodge, it’s a recognition of the fact that we were going nowhere. The ‘animal suffering’ thread was a case in point - did you really think it was going to get resolved? Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all, I’m not going to change anyone’s mind no matter how screwy their argument and how robust mine! And vice versa. But I have to confess I enjoy the debates until they become repetitive, then I get bored. Sorry I didn’t say goodbye!

sure, if you really want me too, i can do so.

Hopefully I’ve clarified, but if you want to illustrate where believe that you’ve cornered me, I’d be happy to discuss it, for interest’s sake.

no, i called your dodging when you were actually dodging the argument. your logic is no where near sound. case in point above, you thought that the word “being” implied sentience

Also explained. My logic is pretty good. If Wikipedia got the translation wrong, then fair enough. If Aquinas really did use “thing” then switch to “being”, then it’s a touch suspicious unless there is documentary evidence that he used the two different words (with different semantic meanings in everyday use) interchangeably. If that evidence exists, well, then there’s still the other objections I raised.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Have to confess that I don’t know that much about VPs, but if it’s been proved that they can only exist in an extant universe, then I find it hard to imagine that anybody who values their scientific reputation is still touting them as the reason for the birth of the universe.

beats the heck outta me too:shrug:

though i am coming to the conclusion that it is a lack of critical thinking skills that one finds in the exploration of philosophy. pure science educations seem to leave it out.

With you now. Okay, so it’s an assumption. Everything is, given that nobody was there at the time! Still not sure how this relates to my question on the ramifications of Aquinas’s proofs though.

again, i am refering to the faulty ideas of “being” that many have as demonstrated by the subjects discussed VP, singularity, etc.

Maybe - it’s starting to look that way. I just don’t understand your ‘ramifications’ comment!
Yes, but what are the ontological ramifications? I’m assuming you meant ramification as in ‘consequence’ - maybe that isn’t what you meant?

the ramifications being that the many have a faulty idea of “being” used to dismiss Aquinas. i dont know how i can explain it any better.

Again, because infinity is not truly understood I don’t think one can claim this. Although as it happens, I tend to agree that it seems unlikely. But then my head starts to spin when I consider that there must have been a ‘before…’ I think the biggest problem with the contingency argument is the assertion that the first cause was a sentient being, God. There may have been a first event, but there’s no proof that it was aware of itself, let alone designed and maintained the Universe, and any/all of the other activities commonly attributed to God.

sure, at the end of the contingency argument you come to bare existence. inclusive of all things. including sentience. thats where you get the maxiaml qualities and so forth. but the mathematical aspects of prophecy convinces me.

aside from the general problem of a causal chain existing if there is no starting point, the problem accepting an ICR is that it only becomes an “itjusthappened” as opposed to a “G-ddidit”

And we’ve briefly discussed these odds before - they’re easy to fabricate after the event and ultimately prove nothing. In my opinion.

do you have any evidence that they were fabricated after the fact? the Jews have had them in their possession for millenia. they can verify their authenticity. i think you would need some pretty good evidence to combat that. Christains and Jews arent stupid, we would be quite interested if anyone had ever exposed real evidence that the prophecies were faked, the Jews are lying, etc.

its almost impossible to get around the math of it, and there seems to be no real evidence they are faked that amounts to anything more than bare assertion.

Disagree with your conclusions. Although some of my objections are down to potential semantic ambiguity, Aquinas is no longer around to clarify exactly what he meant. If “beings” means “things that be,” for example, how come he didn’t stick to the same word? Or it might be Wikipedia’s error, I don’t know.

i cant comment on Aquinas’ linguistic proliclivities. or wikipedia, but Aquinas is not the end all, be all of metaphysics.

My other points - that his arguments are based on groundless assertions, I stand by.

im sure that he had his reasons, they were not “baseless” assertions. you might not like the basis’ for some reason, but he wasnt just talking to hear himself speak.

Possibly, but I think my lack of knowledge of exactly how science tesselates with metaphysics does not have an impact of my recognition of a false premise within a religious (or any other) ‘proof.’

interesting use of tessellates

If I jumped threads, it was because there was clearly no point in continuing. You weren’t accepting anything I was saying, and I didn’t accept what you were saying. It’s not a dodge, it’s a recognition of the fact that we were going nowhere. The ‘animal suffering’ thread was a case in point - did you really think it was going to get resolved? Sometimes I wonder why I bother at all, I’m not going to change anyone’s mind no matter how screwy their argument and how robust mine! And vice versa. But I have to confess I enjoy the debates until they become repetitive, then I get bored. Sorry I didn’t say goodbye!Hopefully I’ve clarified, but if you want to illustrate where believe that you’ve cornered me, I’d be happy to discuss it, for interest’s sake.

purposely jumping threads is bad form. it happens accidentally sometimes too. that said, i expect anyone who needs good evidence for something to doubt animal emotions. as the cry for evidence is at the heart of many atheists claims, im always a little surprised that atheists deny it so vociferously, given that it is a situation lacking in valid evidence.

Also explained. My logic is pretty good. If Wikipedia got the translation wrong, then fair enough. If Aquinas really did use “thing” then switch to “being”, then it’s a touch suspicious unless there is documentary evidence that he used the two different words (with different semantic meanings in everyday use) interchangeably. If that evidence exists, well, then there’s still the other objections I raised.

im not sure why such a switch is important, they both refer to the same thing. a “being” is anything that exists and a “thing” is anything that exists, at least in english.

 

[wanstronian]

beats the heck outta me too:shrug:

So logically, either these reputable scientists aren’t claiming this, or the extant universe theory hasn’t been proved, or the reputable scientists are loony-tunes.

though i am coming to the conclusion that it is a lack of critical thinking skills that one finds in the exploration of philosophy. pure science educations seem to leave it out.

I can’t comment because I don’t know. Maybe it depends on what you define as ‘critical thinking skills.’ As far as I am aware, science requires proof before it considers a hypothesis. Maybe that precludes critical thinking skills, but if so, then it seems that critical thinking skills are not sufficient to provide a definitive answer.

again, i am refering to the faulty ideas of “being” that many have as demonstrated by the subjects discussed VP, singularity, etc.

Okay, understand you now. I thought you were saying that the consequences of Aquinas’ proofs being potentially true somehow overrode the fact that his arguments are logically inept.

sure, at the end of the contingency argument you come to bare existence. inclusive of all things. including sentience. thats where you get the maxiaml qualities and so forth. but the mathematical aspects of prophecy convinces me.

And if they could be verified as genuine and chronologically accurate, then it would convince a lot of people! The trouble is, they can’t.

aside from the general problem of a causal chain existing if there is no starting point, the problem accepting an ICR is that it only becomes an “itjusthappened” as opposed to a “G-ddidit”

Indeed. That still leaves the conceptual problem of ‘before.’ I can’t see how it’s answerable with any degree of confidence.

do you have any evidence that they were fabricated after the fact?

No, but it’s just a set of books, for god’s sake. It **could **have been faked, there is no evidence that it hasn’t, therefore the conclusion wrought from it is just as prone to falsehood.

the Jews have had them in their possession for millenia. they can verify their authenticity.

How? By promising it’s true?

i think you would need some pretty good evidence to combat that.

I don’t need evidence, I need to *see contrary *evidence. I’m not claiming it’s all faked, I’m just pointing out that it could have been and if so, the God conclusion is built on shaky foundations.

Christains and Jews arent stupid, we would be quite interested if anyone had ever exposed real evidence that the prophecies were faked, the Jews are lying, etc.

Again - you don’t need to prove this, you just need the seed of doubt.

its almost impossible to get around the math of it, and there seems to be no real evidence they are faked that amounts to anything more than bare assertion.

Once again, I’m not claiming they’re faked - I just don’t know enough either way. What I do know is that they could have been, and I’m not aware of any evidence that they weren’t. So why just blindly believe them?

i cant comment on Aquinas’ linguistic proliclivities. or wikipedia, but Aquinas is not the end all, be all of metaphysics.

Maybe not, but that is the subject of this aspect of the thread so that is what we are discussing.

im sure that he had his reasons, they were not “baseless” assertions. you might not like the basis’ for some reason, but he wasnt just talking to hear himself speak.

“There was an uncaused cause - it must have been God.” That’s a baseless assertion if ever I heard one. Or is there some supporting material behind this assertion that shows beyond doubt that the uncaused cause was indeed God?

interesting use of tessellates

Why thank you. Apart from the spelling error, I couldn’t immediately think of the right word. Still can’t, come to think of it…

purposely jumping threads is bad form.

I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I’ve seen people announce their withdrawal from the thread! Bad form it may be, but when in Rome…

happens accidentally sometimes too. that said, i expect anyone who needs good evidence for something to doubt animal emotions. as the cry for evidence is at the heart of many atheists claims, im always a little surprised that atheists deny it so vociferously, given that it is a situation lacking in valid evidence.

I’m not getting drawn into the conversation again. But I would be interested in your opinion on this.

im not sure why such a switch is important, they both refer to the same thing. a “being” is anything that exists and a “thing” is anything that exists, at least in english.

Really? Do you nudge the person next to you and say, “Hey, what’s that being over there?” Semantically they have different connotations. Maybe not in Aquinas’ day.

 

[Fran65]

In terms of generating hypotheses to be tested, yes, inductive science requires evidence to generate hypotheses. However, deductive science proceeds from theory to hypothesis to evidence.

Both induction and deduction are used in science to generate hypotheses.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So logically, either these reputable scientists aren’t claiming this, or the extant universe theory hasn’t been proved, or the reputable scientists are loony-tunes.

no, its usually atheists, not reputable scientists. there is no “extant theory” im pointing out the faulty sense of being in the idea that the universe could be generated from VP. and yes, a few reputable scientists are looney tunes, not many though.

And if they could be verified as genuine and chronologically accurate, then it would convince a lot of people! The trouble is, they can’t. Indeed.

umm… how does verified as genuine and chonologically accurate play into this? and why do you think they arent possible.?

That still leaves the conceptual problem of 'before.'I can’t see how it’s answerable with any degree of confidence.

ummm…what conceptual problem of “before”? this, and the statement above are not making metaphysical sense here.

No, but it’s just a set of books, for god’s sake. It **could **have been faked, there is no evidence that it hasn’t, therefore the conclusion wrought from it is just as prone to falsehood.How?

a continual chain of evidence makes it pretty clear.

By promising it’s true?

how do you know any document is true that you didnt witness yourself?

I don’t need evidence, I need to *see contrary *evidence. I’m not claiming it’s all faked, I’m just pointing out that it could have been and if so, the God conclusion is built on shaky foundations. [Again - you don’t need to prove this, you just need the seed of doubt.Once again, I’m not claiming they’re faked - I just don’t know enough either way. What I do know is that they **could have been

, and I’m not aware of any evidence that they weren’t. So why just blindly believe them?

yes, you need evidence, just asserting it may be so doesnt amount to anything but an assertion without evidence. if you want it to be more than an assertion of a possibility you need evidence.

Maybe not, but that is the subject of this aspect of the thread so that is what we are discussing.

its what you keep trying to talk about, and as i keep trying to tell you i havent the foggiest of what your talking about,

“There was an uncaused cause - it must have been God.” That’s a baseless assertion if ever I heard one. Or is there some supporting material behind this assertion that shows beyond doubt that the uncaused cause was indeed God?

yes, i just told you what they were.

But I would be interested in your opinion on this.

cute, but classic pack behavior. doesnt indicate an emotion at all. evolutions programming.

Really? Do you nudge the person next to you and say, “Hey, what’s that being over there?” Semantically they have different connotations. Maybe not in Aquinas’ day.

um, no, but like mathematics, certain words have certain meanings, in metaphysics. and as ive pointed out i dont see the problem.

 

[wanstronian]

no, its usually atheists, not reputable scientists. there is no “extant theory” im pointing out the faulty sense of being in the idea that the universe could be generated from VP. and yes, a few reputable scientists are looney tunes, not many though.

Oh, I thought you were refuting scientific conclusions. You’re just atheist-bashing.

umm… how does verified as genuine and chonologically accurate play into this?

You don’t understand how basic document verification is important when using documentation as a basis for argument???

and why do you think they arent possible.?

I can’t see how X thousand-year-old documentation could be proved to be a genuine record of events rather than a post-event fabrication to fulfil prophecy.

ummm…what conceptual problem of “before”? this, and the statement above are not making metaphysical sense here.

What was before the Universe? I know Planck time is alleged not to have existed, but I have trouble conceptualising a timeless nothingness. If the Universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago… what happened before that? It’s not important, it was just a sideline.

a continual chain of evidence makes it pretty clear.

It would, that’s true. But at the risk of repeating the obvious, no such verified chain exists.

how do you know any document is true that you didnt witness yourself?

Two things: firstly the given document would normally have signed or otherwise authenticated witness statements. But more importantly, the sequence of events within the document would need to be credible. Those two things don’t make the document absolutely watertight, but they go along way towards being convincing.

yes, you need evidence, just asserting it may be so doesnt amount to anything but an assertion without evidence. if you want it to be more than an assertion of a possibility you need evidence.

Well, this is just the archetypal case of the theist challenging an atheist to prove a negative. For one who claims to have such a lucid grasp of logic etc., I’m surprised you let yourself trot this one out. I’'ll trot out the standard response - do you have evidence that unicorns don’t exist? No? I assume you believe in them then.

its what you keep trying to talk about, and as i keep trying to tell you i havent the foggiest of what your talking about,

Wrong - I have been discussing specifically Aquinas’s misnamed ‘proofs’ - you introduced the concept of other aspects of metaphysics. You have wandered off-topic, then tried to make it sound like I’m being ambiguous!

yes, i just told you what they were.

No you haven’t. The mathematics stuff? Setting aside the fact that it’s easily falsifiable, how does it prove God as the first cause even if it were shown to be genuine?

cute, but classic pack behavior. doesnt indicate an emotion at all. evolutions programming.

Classic pack behaviour? What’s the benefit to the pack of dragging a dead colleague along? Still, I’m not surprised at your response. I’m guessing an animal has to talk to you before you’ll believe it’s not an automaton. Even then I suspect you’ll find some way to keep on denying it.

um, no, but like mathematics, certain words have certain meanings, in metaphysics. and as ive pointed out i dont see the problem.

Clearly you don’t. Guess that must mean there isn’t one then.

 

[JDaniel]

Okay (proofs from Wikipedia):

Argument from Unmoved Mover:
Point 3: “An infinite regress of movers is impossible.” This is an assertion that cannot be proved.

Not so. I can’t imagine who could have written this tripe for Wikipedia. The Ways of St. Thomas are not “explained” within their shortness of words. They are explained throughout most of the Summa. If all you have read is the Five Ways, you haven’t a clue of anything about his arguments.

If you understood the concept of “infinite regress” with regard to motion, or causation, having to do with essentially subordinated movers, you would understand why your statement from Wikipedia is completely wrong.

Point 5: “This mover is what we call God.” This is either a sidestep whereby Aquinas calls something God without ascribing all the qualities that are generally ascribed to God (ie. he could be just calling natural phenomena God), OR an unjustified leap of logic to say that the unmoved mover can be nothing OTHER than God.

Once again, if you haven’t read the pertinent material, idiotic statements flow without regard to how one will look in the eyes of other.

Same problems with Argument from First Cause.

Se above.

Argument from Contingency, one problem is that we start out talking about “things” and then suddenly call them “beings.” Implicitly giving them sentience. Then the final step is to assert that this conjured-up being is God.

Absurd.

Argument from Degree is a purely conceptual argument with no instantiation. And another leap of logic - “This pinnacle is whom we call God.”

Absurd.

Teleological Argument:
Step one: “All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.” There’s no proof of this. There’s also a semantic error in the use of the word ‘act’ which implies purpose for which no evidence exists.

Really. Would you mind providing an example?

As you can see, all five ‘proofs’ are easily refuted. These are just my attempts - type ‘aquinas refuted’ into your favourite search engine and you’ll find plenty more. If you think I’m not ‘understanding Aquinas’ then perhaps he should have been clearer. If you think I’m not ‘understanding science’ then please tell me specifically what I’m not understanding!It seems that your definition of ‘running when being cornered’ equates to mine of ‘pointing out the problems in your logic.’ It’s somewhat arrogant of you to assume you’ve ever ‘cornered’ me - perhaps you could point out where! Your pattern, which I’ve seen in many other posts, is to call ‘dodge’ whenever someone disagrees with you, even when their logic is perfectly sound. If anybody is evasive, it is you!

I’m surprised that you put your personal imprimatur on these!

jd

 

[Matthias123]

socialjusticereview.org/articles/existence_god.php

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, I thought you were refuting scientific conclusions. You’re just atheist-bashing.

**something about your posting makes all the words run together, and it takes too long to handle these long posts, so keep it short and to the point please. **

as they are the ones drawing invalid conclusions, im not sure how that is inappropriate? if it were actual reputable scientists, which it rarely is, i would call them out on it. i did have to call a physicist out on the singularity.

You don’t understand how basic document verification is important when using documentation as a basis for argument???

no, i dont understand how you doubt it, considering the Jews have had them for millenia? do you doubt the moonlanding, alexanders conquests, platos forums, or aesops fables?

I can’t see how X thousand-year-old documentation could be proved to be a genuine record of events rather than a post-event fabrication to fulfil prophecy.

chain of evidence, the Jews have had these books for millenia. do you have any evidence that they are fake at all? or is this just bare assertion?

What was before the Universe? I know Planck time is alleged not to have existed, but I have trouble conceptualising a timeless nothingness. If the Universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago… what happened before that?

you cant conceptualize them because they dont exist. “nothing” has no form, shape, or substance. it is literally something that does not exist, it is simply an artifact of language. “time” also does not exist, its simply the way that we sort change in our own minds. change exists, but not time, physicists call this the problem of time. time is simply a subjective measuring stick that we use because it is convenient, metaphysically, time is a singularity. everything happens in an eternal now. (yes, i know, sounds crazy. think about it for a while though)

It’s not important, it was just a sideline.It would, that’s true. But at the risk of repeating the obvious, no such verified chain exists.

um…what? we obviously know these things precede Christ by centuries. Just ask the Jews.

Two things: firstly the given document would normally have signed or otherwise authenticated witness statements. But more importantly, the sequence of events within the document would need to be credible. Those two things don’t make the document absolutely watertight, but they go along way towards being convincing.

it depends on which book your talking but the OT has been held by the Jews for millemia, signing doesnt guaruntee you anything. as to the credibility of the claims. thats all a matter of opinion. there are any number of ancient events that seem unlikely, alexander travels thousands of miles defeating empire after empire all the way to the indus? the gates of thermopylae were held against hundreds of thousands by 300? they happened.

Well, this is just the archetypal case of the theist challenging an atheist to prove a negative. For one who claims to have such a lucid grasp of logic etc., I’m surprised you let yourself trot this one out. I’'ll trot out the standard response - do you have evidence that unicorns don’t exist?

again, what are you talking about? i dont want you to prove a negative, you made a positive assertion of fakery, i want some evidence for it.

No? I assume you believe in them then.Wrong - I have been discussing specifically Aquinas’s misnamed ‘proofs’ - you introduced the concept of other aspects of metaphysics. You have wandered off-topic, then tried to make it sound like I’m being ambiguous

!

um…dont you remember making a big deal out of my statement on the ontological ramifications? you have made a comment into thread.

No you haven’t. The mathematics stuff? Setting aside the fact that it’s easily falsifiable,

how is it easily falsifiable? many of the prophecies are completly out of human conntrol, birthplace, lineage, so forth.

how does it prove God as the first cause even if it were shown to be genuine?

because we can use it to show that G-d is G-d, hence when we find first cause, we know who it is. just as Aquinas assumed G-d was first cause for the same reasons.

Classic pack behaviour? What’s the benefit to the pack of dragging a dead colleague along? Still, I’m not surprised at your response. I’m guessing an animal has to talk to you before you’ll believe it’s not an automaton. Even then I suspect you’ll find some way to keep on denying it.

first, is the video real? second does the other dog take the pulse of his buddy? how does he know the other dog is dead? and yes an animal actually speaking to me that has not been trained to speak by people would be the only way you could verify animmals have emotions.

but i am shocked at the numbers of atheists who believe animals have emotions as opposed to programmed by evolution reactions with no evidence of emtions over programming, these are the same people that have very high standards of evidence for Christianity. its very hypocritical.

Clearly you don’t. Guess that must mean there isn’t one then.

there probably isnt. you thought that “being” implied something more than it does metaphysically.

 

[wanstronian]

Not so. I can’t imagine who could have written this tripe for Wikipedia. The Ways of St. Thomas are not “explained” within their shortness of words. They are explained throughout most of the Summa. If all you have read is the Five Ways, you haven’t a clue of anything about his arguments.

Fine. That is the question I asked. WSP’s response was that he’d already provided it - clearly that isn’t the case.

If you understood the concept of “infinite regress” with regard to motion, or causation, having to do with essentially subordinated movers, you would understand why your statement from Wikipedia is completely wrong.

The comment isn’t from Wikipedia, it’s mine. The extract from the ‘proofs’ is from Wikipedia. I’m not saying an infinite regress is possible, I’m saying I don’t think it can be proved impossible. I might be wrong. As it happens, I don’t believe in infinite regress either. I’m just not sure it can be disproved. However, I don’t think this is where Aquinas’ arguments fail.

Once again, if you haven’t read the pertinent material, idiotic statements flow without regard to how one will look in the eyes of other.

I don’t particularly care how I look in your eyes. You are clearly an abrasive character for whom the rude dismissal of others is an inbuilt quality.

Absurd.

How so? Where is the proof that the first cause is the sentient, omnimaximal entity, God? Your “Absurd” statement amounts to a baseless assertion, ironic considering the vitriolic dismissiveness that you have shown in your post so far.

Absurd.

My previous comment implies. Instead of just asserting absurdness, how about you ante up and explain why I’m wrong? Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously? On the face of it, you just seem like an aggressive little arse.

Really. Would you mind providing an example?

Give me a break.

I’m surprised that you put your personal imprimatur on these!

Why? Prove me wrong. Prove that an infinite regress is impossible. Then prove that the prime mover must be a sentient and unique God.

Quick question - are you as rude and dismissive to everyone you meet? Or just people who have the intelligence to question the things you blindly believe in?

 

[wanstronian]

**something about your posting makes all the words run together, and it takes too long to handle these long posts, so keep it short and to the point please. **

They look fine to me - what browser are you using? I’ll use as many words as I need to and no more, if that’s quite alright with you!

as they are the ones drawing invalid conclusions, im not sure how that is inappropriate? if it were actual reputable scientists, which it rarely is, i would call them out on it. i did have to call a physicist out on the singularity.

I never said it was inappropriate, you just didn’t make your point clear initially. What explanation do the physicists give, out of interest?

no, i dont understand how you doubt it, considering the Jews have had them for millenia?

Oh, I don’t doubt they exist, nor do I doubt their authenticity. I just doubt they are a true record of events.

do you doubt the moonlanding, alexanders conquests, platos forums, or aesops fables?

Generally no, but the difference is that none of these events describe as truth something which has been shown to be impossible. The great flood, for example, or Jesus’ walking on water, and so on.

chain of evidence, the Jews have had these books for millenia. do you have any evidence that they are fake at all? or is this just bare assertion?

Now you misrepresent me. I have not made any definitive statement that they are fake. I have pointed out that they might be, and that no evidence exists to prove they are not. I made this clear in my previous post, I’m surprised you missed it. I thought you would consider yourself above straw men, but clearly not!

you cant conceptualize them because they dont exist. “nothing” has no form, shape, or substance. it is literally something that does not exist, it is simply an artifact of language. “time” also does not exist, its simply the way that we sort change in our own minds. change exists, but not time, physicists call this the problem of time. time is simply a subjective measuring stick that we use because it is convenient, metaphysically, time is a singularity. everything happens in an eternal now. (yes, i know, sounds crazy. think about it for a while though)

As I said, this is just a sideline, I don’t believe the answer can be known currently. Your opinion is just that, btw, it’s not fact. However, this is an irrelevant side-track, let’s stop.

um…what? we obviously know these things precede Christ by centuries. Just ask the Jews.

As I said above, I have no doubt that the documents exist. We’ve been here before. If a prediction is made for an event that doesn’t occur, there’s nothing to stop someone writing that it did occur. All I’m saying is that there’s no evidence that this is not the case.

it depends on which book your talking but the OT has been held by the Jews for millemia, signing doesnt guaruntee you anything. as to the credibility of the claims. thats all a matter of opinion. there are any number of ancient events that seem unlikely, alexander travels thousands of miles defeating empire after empire all the way to the indus? the gates of thermopylae were held against hundreds of thousands by 300? they happened.

Did they? You know for a fact that ‘hundreds of thousand’ were held by ‘300’? Where are the attendance rolls stored, with all the names of both sides? You’ve heard the saying, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” - do you not think that this, coupled with Chinese whispers and the urge to tell a great story, may have distorted the facts over time?

again, what are you talking about? i dont want you to prove a negative, you made a positive assertion of fakery, i want some evidence for it.

Read my post again, I made no such claim.

um…dont you remember making a big deal out of my statement on the ontological ramifications? you have made a comment into thread.

Yes, the ontological ramification of Aquinas. You then said, “but Aquinas is not the end all, be all of metaphysics,” to which I responded that Aquinas is the topic of this thread. Hopefully that clarifies for you.

how is it easily falsifiable? many of the prophecies are completly out of human conntrol, birthplace, lineage, so forth.

How many prophecies have been made that are accurate enough to predict an even in living memory, that can be documented to have happened exactly as described?

because we can use it to show that G-d is G-d, hence when we find first cause, we know who it is. just as Aquinas assumed G-d was first cause for the same reasons.

If God is just a word for ‘first cause,’ and you’re not ascribing all the omnimax attributes, then that’s cool. If God is just a name for an event, then it’s slightly disingenuous, but I happy that we understand each other.

first, is the video real? second does the other dog take the pulse of his buddy? how does he know the other dog is dead? and yes an animal actually speaking to me that has not been trained to speak by people would be the only way you could verify animmals have emotions.

but i am shocked at the numbers of atheists who believe animals have emotions as opposed to programmed by evolution reactions with no evidence of emtions over programming, these are the same people that have very high standards of evidence for Christianity. its very hypocritical.

Is it fair to say that you think all life evolved using probably the same process, then God specifically gave humans, and humans alone, intelligence et al?

there probably isnt. you thought that “being” implied something more than it does metaphysically.

I was pointing out the inconsistency in Aquinas’s phraseology. That’s all. As I said, maybe the inconsistency is Wikipedia’s.

 

[Fran65]

Wanstronian,

It is no wonder that you are having difficulty understanding Aquinas very fine, nuanced and complex arguments if you are relying on Wiki!

Ever hear of the children’s game of Chinese Whispers?

You really need to spend some serious time reading him and decent commentators. I seem to remember recommending this to you several months ago!

There is a reason that I (and most decent universities) don’t allow students to reference Wiki or use it as their only source!

 

[MindOverMatter]

All physical things extend into reality potentially, past present future, and therefore none of them can explain why things exist, since all them are only potential realities regardless of how long they existed. Thus that which is the cause of why things exist, cannot be a potential reality existing within the chain of changing beings. It has to be an absolute necessary and timeless being, transcending all changing and potential things.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They look fine to me - what browser are you using? I’ll use as many words as I need to and no more, if that’s quite alright with you! I never said it was inappropriate, you just didn’t make your point clear initially. What explanation do the physicists give, out of interest?Oh, I don’t doubt they exist, nor do I doubt their authenticity. I just doubt they are a true record of events.Generally no, but the difference is that none of these events describe as truth something which has been shown to be impossible. The great flood, for example, or Jesus’ walking on water, and so on.Now you misrepresent me. I have not made any definitive statement that they are fake. I have pointed out that they might be, and that no evidence exists to prove they are not. I made this clear in my previous post, I’m surprised you missed it. I thought you would consider yourself above straw men, but clearly not!As I said, this is just a sideline, I don’t believe the answer can be known currently. Your opinion is just that, btw, it’s not fact. However, this is an irrelevant side-track, let’s stop.As I said above, I have no doubt that the documents exist. We’ve been here before. If a prediction is made for an event that doesn’t occur, there’s nothing to stop someone writing that it did occur. All I’m saying is that there’s no evidence that this is not the case.Did they? You know for a fact that ‘hundreds of thousand’ were held by ‘300’? Where are the attendance rolls stored, with all the names of both sides? You’ve heard the saying, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” - do you not think that this, coupled with Chinese whispers and the urge to tell a great story, may have distorted the facts over time?Read my post again, I made no such claim.Yes, the ontological ramification of Aquinas. You then said, “but Aquinas is not the end all, be all of metaphysics,” to which I responded that Aquinas is the topic of this thread. Hopefully that clarifies for you.How many prophecies have been made that are accurate enough to predict an even in living memory, that can be documented to have happened exactly as described?If God is just a word for ‘first cause,’ and you’re not ascribing all the omnimax attributes, then that’s cool. If God is just a name for an event, then it’s slightly disingenuous, but I happy that we understand each other.Is it fair to say that you think all life evolved using probably the same process, then God specifically gave humans, and humans alone, intelligence et al?I was pointing out the inconsistency in Aquinas’s phraseology. That’s all. As I said, maybe the inconsistency is Wikipedia’s.

this is what it looks like to me. i havent read beyond the first part where you declare youll do as you wish, and i have more fruitful discussions occuring elsewhere, so i will leave you to JD. MoM. and Fran.

thank you

 

[JDaniel]

Fine. That is the question I asked. WSP’s response was that he’d already provided it - clearly that isn’t the case.The comment isn’t from Wikipedia, it’s mine. The extract from the ‘proofs’ is from Wikipedia.

From your statements, it sounded as though you were reciting from Wikipedia.

I’m not saying an infinite regress is possible, I’m saying I don’t think it can be proved impossible. I might be wrong. As it happens, I don’t believe in infinite regress either. I’m just not sure it can be disproved.

I will have to spend a little time to find the proofs herein, as they were stated some time ago. If I can’t find them, I’ll re-write them for you.

However, I don’t think this is where Aquinas’ arguments fail.

Could you be a little more specific?

I don’t particularly care how I look in your eyes.

If you will recall, due to your statement’s wording, I originally presumed that we were speaking of Wikipedia’s statements, NOT statements you were making. So, my rudeness was channeled toward Wikipedia, not at you. It is not uncommon to find stuff written in such places that is thoroughly reprehensible. Since I thought the remarks you were reciting were quotes from such a source, I was slashing at Wikipedia - not you.

You are clearly an abrasive character for whom the rude dismissal of others is an inbuilt quality.

I wish!

How so? Where is the proof that the first cause is the sentient, omnimaximal entity, God? Your “Absurd” statement amounts to a baseless assertion, ironic considering the vitriolic dismissiveness that you have shown in your post so far.My previous comment implies. Instead of just asserting absurdness, how about you ante up and explain why I’m wrong? Otherwise why should I take anything you say seriously? On the face of it, you just seem like an aggressive little arse.Give me a break.

Hopefully, you have automatically retracted all of this. If not, whenever you get to the U.S., give me a shout. I’ll meet you at a local gym. You can load the bar for me and I’ll load the bar for you. Then we’ll talk.

Prove me wrong. Prove that an infinite regress is impossible. Then prove that the prime mover must be a sentient and unique God.

Let’s take a look at an essentially subordinated chain of causes: When a nail is pounded into wood, we go backward to the hammer, then the hand gripping the hammer, then, the arm to which the hand is attached, then the shoulder, then the back, and the neck. We could even go back through the nervous system to the brain, as the impetus of the motion. As you can see, there is no infinity of movers, nor the possibility of an infinity of movers. One must remember that in an essentially subordinated chain of movers, the entire chain occurs simultaneously - in a “now” (which is not a part of the time continuum).

Now, an accidentally subordinated chain of movers would be such as great grand parents, grand parents, parents, and, finally, children. In this type of chain, an infinity is possible (according to St. Thomas). This chain does not occur simultaneously. It happens over time. It is not an actual infinity though, rather, it is potentially infinite.

Quick question - are you as rude and dismissive to everyone you meet? Or just people who have the intelligence to question the things you blindly believe in?

Perhaps you should come to America.

jd

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian,

It is no wonder that you are having difficulty understanding Aquinas very fine, nuanced and complex arguments if you are relying on Wiki!

Ever hear of the children’s game of Chinese Whispers?

You really need to spend some serious time reading him and decent commentators. I seem to remember recommending this to you several months ago!

There is a reason that I (and most decent universities) don’t allow students to reference Wiki or use it as their only source!

If you had read my posts you will see that I caveated Wikipedia as my source, and explicitly pointed out that any errors may be due to that source.

Out of interest, do you disagree with Wikipedia’s version of the five ‘proofs?’ Are they wrong?

 

[wanstronian]

this is what it looks like to me. i havent read beyond the first part where you declare youll do as you wish, and i have more fruitful discussions occuring elsewhere, so i will leave you to JD. MoM. and Fran.

thank you

Nice disengenuity.

 

[wanstronian]

From your statements, it sounded as though you were reciting from Wikipedia.

Partially. The quotes indicated which parts. You seem to have ignored them. Never mind, it’s no biggie.

I will have to spend a little time to find the proofs herein, as they were stated some time ago. If I can’t find them, I’ll re-write them for you.

Okay, I’ll look forward to it. (not meant sarcastically!)

Could you be a little more specific?

As I made clear before, I think the leap of logic from ‘unmoved mover’ or other expression of first cause to the omnimaxial God, is one that requires a little bit more than just, “this we call God.” As I said to WSP before he jumped ship, maybe there’s some background reading that fills this logical chasm.

If you will recall, due to your statement’s wording, I originally presumed that we were speaking of Wikipedia’s statements, NOT statements you were making. So, my rudeness was channeled toward Wikipedia, not at you. It is not uncommon to find stuff written in such places that is thoroughly reprehensible. Since I thought the remarks you were reciting were quotes from such a source, I was slashing at Wikipedia - not you.

Okay. Seems you were inadvertently ‘slashing’ at me, but I’m fairly thick-skinned so it doesn’t matter.

I wish!

Yep, crossed wires all round, it seems.

Hopefully, you have automatically retracted all of this. If not, whenever you get to the U.S., give me a shout. I’ll meet you at a local gym. You can load the bar for me and I’ll load the bar for you. Then we’ll talk.

Not sure what this means - you talking about lifting weights?? I’d be happy to continue the discussion face-to-face, but not sure how demonstrations of physical strength would have any influence! However, I’m not due in the US any time soon. Possibly Mesa early - mid Next year.

Let’s take a look at an essentially subordinated chain of causes: When a nail is pounded into wood, we go backward to the hammer, then the hand gripping the hammer, then, the arm to which the hand is attached, then the shoulder, then the back, and the neck. We could even go back through the nervous system to the brain, as the impetus of the motion. As you can see, there is no infinity of movers, nor the possibility of an infinity of movers. One must remember that in an essentially subordinated chain of movers, the entire chain occurs simultaneously - in a “now” (which is not a part of the time continuum).

Now, an accidentally subordinated chain of movers would be such as great grand parents, grand parents, parents, and, finally, children. In this type of chain, an infinity is possible (according to St. Thomas). This chain does not occur simultaneously. It happens over time. It is not an actual infinity though, rather, it is potentially infinite.

Okay. As I said, I don’t have a particular problem with a regressional backstop. But you forgot to prove that the prime mover **must **be the sentient being called God.

Perhaps you should come to America.

Still not sure this isn’t some sort of threat of violence! I’ll assume it isn’t as nobody sensible offers such challenge to somebody they’ve never seen!

 

[JDaniel]

Partially. The quotes indicated which parts. You seem to have ignored them. Never mind, it’s no biggie. Okay, I’ll look forward to it. (not meant sarcastically!)

Not taken as sarcasm.

As I made clear before, I think the leap of logic from ‘unmoved mover’ or other expression of first cause to the omnimaxial God, is one that requires a little bit more than just, “this we call God.” As I said to WSP before he jumped ship, maybe there’s some background reading that fills this logical chasm.

Yes there is; quite a bit, in fact.

Okay. Seems you were inadvertently ‘slashing’ at me, but I’m fairly thick-skinned so it doesn’t matter.Yep, crossed wires all round, it seems.

Nope. There was nothing inadvertent at all. “Thick skin” is a good thing to have on these forums at times!

As I said, I don’t have a particular problem with a regressional backstop.

What I am referring to is not simply a “regressional backstop”. It is the actual beginning of the complete chain of motion.

But you forgot to prove that the prime mover **must **be the sentient being called God.

First things first. Proof of an infinite regress is part of the requirement that Aquinas was not incorrect.

Still not sure this isn’t some sort of threat of violence! I’ll assume it isn’t as nobody sensible offers such challenge to somebody they’ve never seen!

How can comparative weight lifting be a “threat”? No threat whatsoever from me. Just responding to your statements. I lift with many people. It’s fun and very good exercise.

I will get back to you latter as to how God comes into this picture. I have to leave for a while, but, will return later this evening.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nice disengenuity.

not jumping ship or “disenginuity”, simply unwilling to bother, if youre unwilling to cooperate. the conversation wasnt going anywhere anyway. and i found an excellent argumet concerning esse on another thread. nothing personal. would you want to sort that mess out post after post? of course not.