My analysis of the First Way

[wanstronian]

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.

The only thing I wasn’t willing to cooperate with was your request for excessive brevity and post formatting. I simply said I would take as many words as I felt I needed to get my point across. Is that unreasonable? There are many posters on this thread who will go to greath lengths to interpret comments in such a unique way so as to give themselves an argument - one learns to try and make sure one’s comments are as unambiguous as possible. However, as I’ve pointed out previously, to do that properly would probably take at least one post per point! I try (and often fail) to hit a balance.

But I agree, the thread’s going nowhere. Maybe JD will supply some interesting background to Aquinas. But the five ‘proofs’ as a set of four or five steps, do not in themselves stand up to scrutiny, regardless of whether you accept or refute infinite regress.

 

[Fran65]

But the five ‘proofs’ as a set of four or five steps, do not in themselves stand up to scrutiny.

That is your educated and informed opinion is it? I mean educated and informed regarding Aquinas. Scrutiny involves more than a quick glance at Wiki.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But I agree, the thread’s going nowhere. Maybe JD will supply some interesting background to Aquinas. But the five ‘proofs’ as a set of four or five steps, do not in themselves stand up to scrutiny, regardless of whether you accept or refute infinite regress.

they do, you havent yet offered a refutation that doesnt have an answer.

as to the formatting your posts show up in, it makes long posts difficult and time consuming to respond to. brevity is a virtue. the refutations offered are unambiguous because we see them all the time.

 

[wanstronian]

That is your educated and informed opinion is it? I mean educated and informed regarding Aquinas. Scrutiny involves more than a quick glance at Wiki.

they do, you havent yet offered a refutation that doesnt have an answer.

Tell you what, you point me towards the version of Aquinas’s ‘proofs’ that you are happy with, and lets discuss that. Otherwise I’m wasting my time. Online reference only please - I’m not going to go and buy some weighty tome just to prove my point.

And if Wikipedia is so wrong, you can do the world a favour and update it. The current entries read:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover

The argument of the unmoved mover, or ex motu, tries to explain that God must be the cause of motion in the universe. It is therefore a form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

• Some things are moved.
• Everything that is moving is moved by a mover.
• An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
• Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
• This mover is what we call God.

The Argument of the First Cause

The argument of the first cause (ex causa), tries, unlike the argument of the Unmoved Mover, to prove that God must have been the cause, or the creator of the universe. It is therefore another form of the cosmological argument. It goes thus:

• Some things are caused.
• Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
• An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
• Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all that is caused.
• This causer is what we call God.

The Argument from Contingency

The argument from contingency (ex contingentia):

• Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
• It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
• Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
• This being is whom we call God.

The Argument from Degree

The argument from degree or gradation (ex gradu). It is heavily based upon the teachings of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. It goes thus :

• Varying perfections of varying degrees may be found throughout the universe.
• These degrees assume the existence of an ultimate standard of perfection.
• Therefore, perfection must have a pinnacle.
• This pinnacle is whom we call God.

The Teleological Argument

The teleological argument or argument of “design” (ex fine), which claims that everything in the Universe has a purpose, which must have been caused by God :

• All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.
• These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
• Acting towards an end is characteristic of intelligence.
• Therefore, there exists an intelligent being that guides all natural bodies towards their ends.
• This being is whom we call God.

The link is here, for your convenience.

 

[Fran65]

There is more to Aquinas than what you have copied from Wiki.

As for updating it; I would leave that to someone more qualified then me. Have you heard the saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” ? The fact that pages can be edited by users is one reason that it should not be the main or only source for an argument.

On another thread you advised another poster to “Go away and do more reading” before she makes another post. How is your reading going?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Tell you what, you point me towards the version of Aquinas’s ‘proofs’ that you are happy with, and lets discuss that. Otherwise I’m wasting my time. Online reference only please - I’m not going to go and buy some weighty tome just to prove my point.

And if Wikipedia is so wrong, you can do the world a favour and update it. The current entries read:

The link is here, for your convenience.

i already answered your refutations of these in #38. do you have something new?

 

[wanstronian]

i already answered your refutations of these in #38. do you have something new?

Did you read my post? I’m asking what version of the ‘proofs’ you support, if they are different to those posted on Wikipedia. I have highlighted the flaws with the ‘proofs’ as documented on Wikipedia. You seem insistent that I have missed something, so the conclusion is that Wikipedia’s description is wrong. Or that you are.

If you are happy with Wikipedia’s version, say so, and I will restate the logical holes.

 

[wanstronian]

There is more to Aquinas than what you have copied from Wiki.

As for updating it; I would leave that to someone more qualified then me. Have you heard the saying “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” ? The fact that pages can be edited by users is one reason that it should not be the main or only source for an argument.

On another thread you advised another poster to “Go away and do more reading” before she makes another post. How is your reading going?

Well I’ve asked for links to supporting material - so far you haven’t provided. I’ve also asked you for the URL to your preferred definition of the five ‘proofs’ - so far you haven’t provided.

There is something of a difference between pointing out the gaping holes in the five ‘proofs’ as presented on Wikipedia, and stating that the only alternative to God is “nothing.”

So thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but an erroneous “tu quoque” doesn’t really add value.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Did you read my post? I’m asking what version of the ‘proofs’ you support, if they are different to those posted on Wikipedia. I have highlighted the flaws with the ‘proofs’ as documented on Wikipedia. You seem insistent that I have missed something, so the conclusion is that Wikipedia’s description is wrong. Or that you are.

If you are happy with Wikipedia’s version, say so, and I will restate the logical holes.

yes, i read your post. i have no idea what you mean by “versions” of the proofs they should all be the same, Aquinas only said them one way, they should all be the same. i answered what you thought were flaws in #38. i am not insisting that you missed anything, rather that you simply dont understand Aquinas, i draw this from your previous assertion that “being” implied sentinence, making your unfamiliarity with Aquinas obvious. and what does the wiki description have to do with with me being wrong? and what am i wrong about? and considering your unfamiliarity with metaphysics. how would you be able to tell?

the problem seems from my end that you are talking about things that arent making sense. if you care to talk about 1 of the proofs, simply state your problem with the proof with brevity, and i will be happy to discuss it .

 

[wanstronian]

yes, i read your post. i have no idea what you mean by “versions” of the proofs they should all be the same, Aquinas only said them one way, they should all be the same.

Yes they should - it was implied in this thread that Wikipedia had it wrong.

i answered what you thought were flaws in #38.

No you didn’t, you just said I was wrong. You didn’t provide the proof I requested for Aquinas’s statement that the Unmoved mover must be God. Without that proof, Aquinas falls flat on his beak.

i am not insisting that you missed anything, rather that you simply dont understand Aquinas, i draw this from your previous assertion that “being” implied sentinence, making your unfamiliarity with Aquinas obvious. and what does the wiki description have to do with with me being wrong? and what am i wrong about? and considering your unfamiliarity with metaphysics. how would you be able to tell?

Maybe I don’t understand Aquinas; as I said before, perhaps there’s some background reading that substantiates his claim that the unmoved mover is, without doubt, God. However, I have asked you to provide links to such reading and you have failed to do so. So I’m left with what I could find, which I have effectively refuted. Your dodge into, “You don’t understand metaphysics” is pure fluff - tell me - how does an understanding of metaphysics suddenly make a claim that “the unmoved mover is God” somehow valid? You’re just picking me up on something I admittedly don’t know much about, to deflect my perfectly reasonable statement about something else. It would be like you pressing the “T” key on your keyboard and seeing an “H” appear on the screen, then your tech support guy telling you it’s just because you don’t understand microelectronics.

the problem seems from my end that you are talking about things that arent making sense. if you care to talk about 1 of the proofs, simply state your problem with the proof with brevity, and i will be happy to discuss it .

Your demand for brevity is rude, as I’ve pointed out before. You seem quite happy to criticise others’ etiquette, the irony is not lost. However (using Wikipedia as nobody has been able to provide me with a better source):

The argument of the Unmoved Mover:

• Some things are moved. (Agree with this)
• Everything that is moving is moved by a mover. (Happy with this also)
• An infinite regress of movers is impossible. (Not sure this is provable, but I’m happy to concede it - it’s logically correct and it feels right)
• Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. Again, I’m happy to concede this, it makes sense)
• This mover is what we call God. (Uh-oh!! An assertion that the thing that kicked everything off is a sentient being with omnimaxial attributes!!! Where’s the proof for this statement???)

Unless “God” in this context is just a name, for which we could equally substitute “Hgskj,” then this final statement is just plain wrong. The fact is, if there is an unmoved mover, nobody knows what it was, therefore the final bullet is entirely spurious, and indeed wrong if included. Alternatively, I could equally claim that “This mover is what we call Santa Claus” and voila!! I’ve just proved that Santa exists.

Apart from the Teleological argument, all the others are variations on a theme and fall to the same simple logic.

The teleologic argument falls quite simply to the fact that no purpose (in the context of intelligent intent at a Universal level) has ever been shown to exist. So the whole argument is built on an unprovable premise.

I know you’re not going to agree with me, but I am right. Unless you can provide me with a link to a convincing argument that shows me why I’m wrong. You simply asserting that I am, with all due respect, isn’t enough, no matter how much you try and flower it up with claims of ignorance.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes they should - it was implied in this thread that Wikipedia had it wrong.No you didn’t, you just said I was wrong. You didn’t provide the proof I requested for Aquinas’s statement that the Unmoved mover must be God. Without that proof, Aquinas falls flat on his beak.Maybe I don’t understand Aquinas; as I said before, perhaps there’s some background reading that substantiates his claim that the unmoved mover is, without doubt, God. However, I have asked you to provide links to such reading and you have failed to do so. So I’m left with what I could find, which I have effectively refuted. Your dodge into, “You don’t understand metaphysics” is pure fluff - tell me - how does an understanding of metaphysics suddenly make a claim that “the unmoved mover is God” somehow valid? You’re just picking me up on something I admittedly don’t know much about, to deflect my perfectly reasonable statement about something else. It would be like you pressing the “T” key on your keyboard and seeing an “H” appear on the screen, then your tech support guy telling you it’s just because you don’t understand microelectronics.Your demand for brevity is rude, as I’ve pointed out before. You seem quite happy to criticise others’ etiquette, the irony is not lost. However (using Wikipedia as nobody has been able to provide me with a better source):

The argument of the Unmoved Mover:

• Some things are moved. (Agree with this)
• Everything that is moving is moved by a mover. (Happy with this also)
• An infinite regress of movers is impossible. (Not sure this is provable, but I’m happy to concede it - it’s logically correct and it feels right)
• Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds. Again, I’m happy to concede this, it makes sense)
• This mover is what we call God. (Uh-oh!! An assertion that the thing that kicked everything off is a sentient being with omnimaxial attributes!!! Where’s the proof for this statement???)

Unless “God” in this context is just a name, for which we could equally substitute “Hgskj,” then this final statement is just plain wrong. The fact is, if there is an unmoved mover, nobody knows what it was, therefore the final bullet is entirely spurious, and indeed wrong if included. Alternatively, I could equally claim that “This mover is what we call Santa Claus” and voila!! I’ve just proved that Santa exists.

Apart from the Teleological argument, all the others are variations on a theme and fall to the same simple logic.

The teleologic argument falls quite simply to the fact that no purpose (in the context of intelligent intent at a Universal level) has ever been shown to exist. So the whole argument is built on an unprovable premise.

I know you’re not going to agree with me, but I am right. Unless you can provide me with a link to a convincing argument that shows me why I’m wrong. You simply asserting that I am, with all due respect, isn’t enough, no matter how much you try and flower it up with claims of ignorance.

see what i mean about brevity? all this talk and i already answered the only objection in this post in post #38

specifically

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.

 

[Oreoracle]

brevity is a virtue.

Bwahahahaha! I’m sorry, but that’s just priceless. I could just imagine you being recruited to condense classic works by omitting “non-essential” parts. You would take 800-page novels and strip them till they were three paragraphs long.

 

[Fran65]

Wanstronian,

Let me put it this way. You don’t understand Aquinas. In fact, I recall fom one of your earlier posts when you arrived on CAF that you stated that you weren’t going to waste your time reading a philosopher who lived over 600 years ago.

I don’t recall you asking me for a URL. However, the site below has all the Aquinas that you need online.

aquinasonline.com/

 

[wanstronian]

see what i mean about brevity? all this talk and i already answered the only objection in this post in post #38

specifically

Okay. Now I understand your argument, there’s no need for you and I to discuss this any more.

I’m sorry you don’t like the way I phrase my posts. For what it’s worth, your lack of basic grammar makes your posts quite difficult to read too. Maybe we just have different ideas about the value of proper English?

 

[wanstronian]

Wanstronian,

Let me put it this way. You don’t understand Aquinas. In fact, I recall fom one of your earlier posts when you arrived on CAF that you stated that you weren’t going to waste your time reading a philosopher who lived over 600 years ago.

I don’t recall you asking me for a URL. However, the site below has all the Aquinas that you need online.

aquinasonline.com/

You’re right, I don’t understand Aquinas. However, I have commented elsewhere that “and this everyone understands to be God,” which I think is the crux of the matter, can be interpreted in two ways:

1. Either it’s a substitution of the word “God” for some unexplained force of nature, and Christian will recognise their “God” in this force (as propounded in the analysis of the first way.)

or

1. He really believes that an omnimaxial God created the universe.

If the first one is true, it in no way proves the existence of God. Just that something must have started it all. That something did not have to be sentient or all-powerful etc.

If the second interpretation, then it is clearly a bare assertion. No justification, no evidence… no God.

In either case, Aquinas’s proofs are easily refuted for the generally accepted meaning of “God.”

 

[wanstronian]

Okay. Now I understand your argument, there’s no need for you and I to discuss this any more.

Actually Pete, there is one more thing to be said. Aquinas does not make use of your “odds of Messianic Prophecy” argument. Therefore your smug rebuttal of my valid refutation is entirely misplaced. Aquinas’s Proofs stand refuted on the very grounds I have provided on several occasions throughout this thread.

Your personal beliefs, which rely totally on trusting people you’ve never met (who it can historically be shown had many agendas over the years) to have never fabricated any prophecy realisations, are easily refuted on the grounds of common sense.

 

[brandymmiller]

common sense.

Define common sense? Is it really all that common?

 

[Fran65]

People used to argue for a flat earth and for the sun orbiting the earth on the basis of common sense.

I applaud you Sir - of course, common sense.

 

[wanstronian]

People used to argue for a flat earth and for the sun orbiting the earth on the basis of common sense.

I applaud you Sir - of course, common sense.

The fact that you apparently think that the two situations bear comparison, speaks volumes!