Need help with Aquinas' proofs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sherlock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sherlock

Guest
Hello all,

I am having a discussion with a batch of atheists, and have presented Aquinas’ proofs to show that the existence of God can be reached by reason (they do not accept anything that smacks of faith, and contend that God is an “arbitrary concept” that can only be ascertained by weak minds using faith.

They are Objectivists, a particular variety of atheists. They believe that the universe is eternal, though they agree with me that it is finite. They do not accept that finite entities necessarily have to have a cause. I didn’t think that the universe could be both finite and eternal—is that correct? I’m not a physicist.

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate some help here–these are the arguments being thrown at me by a number of atheists:

“The universe is a finite entity with no cause. It has always existed and always will.”

“Why can only the infinite be eternal?”

“The two statements above (these were: ‘the universe is not eternal because it is finite’; and: ‘to argue against this, you need to provide evidence of a finite entity having no cause’) are merely new attempts to justify the same unsupported assertion: namely, that the universe must have a cause, but god does not.”

“In your last post, you attempted to support this by asserting that the universe is an effect and therefore requires a cause, but god is not an effect and therefore requires no cause. I pointed out that this is also an unsupported, arbitrary assertion.”
“So now you switch to the equally arbitrary, and equally unsupported, assertion that the universe is not eternal and therefore must have a cause, but god is eternal and therefore does not have to have a cause.”
“Do you see a pattern here? You are defining the universe as: that which must have a cause. You define god as: that which does not have a cause. You provide no support for either notion.”
“The assertion that the universe must have a cause, but god does not, is utterly arbitrary – there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Formulating additional arbitrary assertions changes nothing.”

I was also given this link, though I have not had any time to read it: The Unbounded, Finite Universe @ geocities.com/rationalphysics/U…nded_Finite.htm
 
Ouch, don’t understand, head hurts…

What about all those scientists and the big bang theory?

Before that?

The universe is continually expanding. What is it expanding into?

Define the universe and give 3 examples. 😉
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
Ouch, don’t understand, head hurts…

What about all those scientists and the big bang theory?

Before that?

The universe is continually expanding. What is it expanding into?

Define the universe and give 3 examples. 😉
Click to expand...
You could also mention that, by definition, God is the “First Cause”, esp. since the’re giving you a premise which has to be taken on FAITH and contradicts known SCIENTIFIC REALITY!

St. Thomas actually had this in the Summa Theologica, and he provides a refutation of their Stated PREMISE.

You could also attack this from a Different POV.

Show them the Paper by Dr. Elihu Rips on “Equidistant Letter Sequencing in the Book of Genesis” and ask them to explain it(It’s in the Journal of Statistical Science).

cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Nations/WRR2/
torahcodes.co.il/wrr1/wrr1.htm
members.cox.net/mkarep/WRR3.htm

They’ve found similar sequences in the other 4 Books of the Torah…

But you have to get them questioning THEIR PREMISES, or you’ll never get them.

There are also some modern Books

CS Lewis, Mere Chrisitianity
GK Chesterton Orthodoxy

You know, I’ve been reading the ** Life of Christ** by Abp Fulton J. Sheen Why don’t you see if they’ll read that or his Life is Worth Living Series?

You might tell them about the Scud missle attacks on tel Aviv during the first Gulf War. Some 30 (THIRTY) Scud-b missles hit Tel Aviv during the Gul War. Only 1 person died as a result of those attacks - he had a heart attack when he saw that his home was demolished! When the same thing happened to London durin WW II, 13,000 people died from the same typr of missles, and every attack that hit London caused DEATHS! Ask them to explain how only 1 Israli died, and that as a result of a heart attack!

Pull out the Order of Battle for the Battle of Midway - Ask them to account for how we won! I can - God wanted us to! He didn’t want Tyranny to win.

You might tell them about what Jesus said and did, and ask them who they THINK he is? then REMIND them of his claims - show them…Then ask them why the Roman soldiers trembled in their boots and why so many people were willing to die on the arena floor.

Remember, for those who have faith, NO proof is needed. For thjose who refuse to have Faith, NO amount of proof will ever be enough.

I think they need to see the love and the power and mercy of God!

Good Luck, and may God go with you. Don’t let these people intimidate you. Remember, you represent the King of the Universe!

Blessings and Peace, Micahel
 
This is why I say that Aquinas’ “proofs” aren’t proof. God, the “conclusion,” always contradicts the premises.

If the argument could prove God’s existence – to that extent, “look down on” God – then the argument would be greater than God.

We Catholics kill a lot of faith by claiming that God’s existence can be “proven.” By claiming that that which can’t be seen, can be easily seen, all we do is chase converts away.

In truth, God fills the world with inductive hints and questions. When, in response, we are moved to ask, “Are you there?,” the Holy Spirit jumps into our hearts and says, “Yes.”
 
It sounds like they want to say things are finite in space, but not in time? You can’t have it both ways.

The two can’t be disconnected, time and space that is. Mr. Einstein suggested this, and the idea has been pretty well received.

The image I have of the first cause argument is a chain of dominoes. If there were no beginning to the chain, no act of the first domino being knocked down, then the dominoes are still standing - and nothing could be the case right now. Yet here we are…

On the idea of the universe being eternal, the chain of dominoes would be infinite in length; then, even if it were magically set in motion by Ayn Rand herself, it could never get propagated from an infinitely distant there to here in a finite amount of time. Yet here we are… .

In short: an infinite sequence would take a very long time to unfold.

I think St. Thomas used the first cause argument not so much to prove God’s existence to a reasonable mind, which it does, but more importantly to assert that we are brought into being by a creator, and that our being is completely dependent on Him.
 
Thanks, all.

BibleReader, you are reading too much into the word “proof”—or rather, you are equating it with “scientific proof” (measurable). I don’t have a problem with the Catholic claim that the existence of God can be ascertained by natural reason. Aquinas’ “ways”—perhaps a better word to use, as not everyone understands the word “proof” used in the logical sense—are very reasonable and do not require “faith” per se, in order to follow them. This IS very important ammo when dealing with people who will shut the door in one’s face if “faith” is part of the equation. Now, Aquinas’ ways don’t bring us to the fullness of the Catholic God, but then it’s not claiming to.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Thanks, all.

BibleReader, you are reading too much into the word “proof”—or rather, you are equating it with “scientific proof” (measurable). I don’t have a problem with the Catholic claim that the existence of God can be ascertained by natural reason. Aquinas’ “ways”—perhaps a better word to use, as not everyone understands the word “proof” used in the logical sense—are very reasonable and do not require “faith” per se, in order to follow them. This IS very important ammo when dealing with people who will shut the door in one’s face if “faith” is part of the equation. Now, Aquinas’ ways don’t bring us to the fullness of the Catholic God, but then it’s not claiming to.
Click to expand...
Hi, Sherlock.

The Catechism at first *seems to *map your approach, by disdaining regarding “proofs for the existence of God” “in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences.”

But then, it radicalizes proof of God’s existence available to us by defining proofs of God’s existence available to us as “‘converging and convincing arguments’ which allow us to attain certainty about the truth [of God’s existence].”

“Certainty”???

In other words, our Church, in its Catechism, gives **ultimate **weight to the word “proof.”

So, be upset as you want at the way I use terms. In my opinion, I am perfectly on target.
 
Have you ever read the book “Beyond the New Theism” by Germaine Grisez? He gave the best exposition of Aquinas Third Way of knowing there is a God that I have ever read. This is the argument from contingency. You might want to look this book up.
 
40.png
BrianBoru:
Have you ever read the book “Beyond the New Theism” by Germaine Grisez? He gave the best exposition of Aquinas Third Way of knowing there is a God that I have ever read. This is the argument from contingency. You might want to look this book up.
Click to expand...
I’ll keep an eye out for it.
 
40.png
Sherlock:
I am having a discussion with a batch of atheists, and have presented Aquinas’ proofs to show that the existence of God can be reached by reason (they do not accept anything that smacks of faith, and contend that God is an “arbitrary concept” that can only be ascertained by weak minds using faith.

They are Objectivists, a particular variety of atheists. They believe that the universe is eternal, though they agree with me that it is finite. They do not accept that finite entities necessarily have to have a cause. I didn’t think that the universe could be both finite and eternal—is that correct? I’m not a physicist.
Click to expand...
Ask them to explain Belles Theorum and Quantum Mechanics or how light can possess two qualities (that of a wavelength and of individual packets). After they successfully explain the unexplainable (at least by modern physics) let them know that as far as the existance of God is concerned, the philosophers claim that general existence statements cannot be disproven, i.e. the atheists cannot disprove that God exists. And remember that St. Thomas Aquinas took on the project of reconciling faith with reason using Aristotelean syllogistic logic as a basis of reasoning.

I’ve learned never to argue the existance of God on an Atheists terms. Reduce their position to absurdity.

The existance of God is usually argued *a priori; *for example, I can safely make the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow although there is no positive proof that it will rise. But the sun will a priori rise tomorrow. Physics also uses a priori reasoning, - induction, for a lot of its theoretical claims.

So use the leveling rhetorical device of *reductum adsurdum, *reduce the argument of the atheists to absurdity by showing physics to be flawed.

Physics and mathematics are used as analogies for the existance of God for our poor minds to grasp the concept of his existance.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
This is why I say that Aquinas’ “proofs” aren’t proof. God, the “conclusion,” always contradicts the premises…
Click to expand...
Biblereader,
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that faith and proof are mutually exclusive – they aren’t. In fact, Christian faith is most mature when it understands the factual evidence.

Also, take a close look at Aquinas’ text; the conclusion most certainly does not contradict the premises. Claims to the contrary always result from a mis-statement of the argument, such as that found at the talk/origins site (“every event has a cause”).

Sherlock,

I’ve noticed that huge assumption underlies many objections of the kind you’ve listed. The assumption is “God does not exist”. This an article of faith, and it cannot be a rational starting place for a discussion of the question of God’s existance. Do not miss any opportunity to expose this assumption, it begs the question.

Two derivatives of this assumption are “All causes are observable” and “Everything real can be demonstrated by the scientific method”; watch for them. They also beg the question.

The first can be rebutted by pointing out that radioactive decay is a completely random event, and there is no observable efficient cause for any individual decay event; if they claim that the event is in fact uncaused, challenge them to prove it.

The second can be rebutted by challenging them to use the scientific method to prove the existance of an historical person or event, such as Shakespear or the Battle of Hastings.

I’ve NEVER heard a rational response to my charge of question-begging.

It appears that there’s also a twisting of the Prime Mover argument going on here. They seem to be claiming that the existance of God is assumed and provided a place of special pleading. Make sure that you don’t lose sight of the actual structure of the argument: from what we know about motion, we logically conclude that there must be an unmoved mover, which we name “God”. Only then do we continue to determine what attributes this entity must have.

Remember that “belief” and “faith” are not the same thing. If I examine the evidence and conculde that God exists, that Jesus really is the incarnation of God, then what I’ve done is believe. If I then make an act of the will to turn toward him and away from sin, if I personally adhere to God and assent to his revealed truth, if I make a positive response to the divine calling to share in the life of God - then I’ve taken the action of faith. Do not let claims that “faith is belief in the absense of evidence” go unchallenged.

Most of all, speak always in charity and remember that the aim is not to win the discussion, but to win the soul.
 
I suspect that it’s probably fruitless to try to argue the existence of God with a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

In any case, a spatially and temporally infinite universe is quite conceivable, and would not obviate the need for a supreme being under Aquinas’ thinking. (Although current cosmolgical theory–i.e. the big bang–does not apparently consider an infinite universe probable at this point.) The kind of infinity that we attribute to God is of a different order than the infinity that can be attributed to physical stuff such as matter, space, and time.

An infinite universe, or any universe that we can conceive of, does not carry within itself sufficient reason for its own existence. The universe, like any other object, might not have existed. It didn’t *have to * exist. It’s existence was not necessary. You, yourself, do not have within yourself a sufficient reason for your own existence. Thus, to explain the existence of anything, there must be at least one non-contingent being–i.e. a being for whom existence is a necessity required by its nature. That pretty much is the argument from contingency.

Still, the argument seems somewhat pointless. “Objectivists” are not accustomed to philosophical argument or the categories of Aristotelian philosophy, and will likely not even accept the basic philosophical premises needed to proceed with the argument.
 
Thanks again, folks.

JimG, actually, the universe IS finite. I just finished reading a booklet by physicist/Catholic priest Stanlry Jaki (a brilliant thinker), in which he points out that if the universe were infinite, then we would not have a dark sky: infinite stars would be sending infinite amounts of light, and even if some of that light is absorbed, we would still be inundated with light. That is probably an extremely weak summation of his argument, and I might be missing something, but that’s what I recall. But you’re correct in saying that NOTHING will convince the followers of Ayn Rand—nasty pieces of work, I must say.

Apolonio, I recall looking briefly at a piece by Aquinas wherein he considers the possibility of an infinite universe, using, I recall, your image of an eternal footprint still needing an eternal foot. But if what Jaki says is correct, then science has demonstrated that it is finite. I’ll take a look at your links, thanks. I’ll also have to find that Aquinas piece. I’m not a philosopher or a physicist, so I have to admit that some of this taxes my brain cells…
 
40.png
Sherlock:
Hello all,

They are Objectivists, a particular variety of atheists. They believe that the universe is eternal, though they agree with me that it is finite. They do not accept that finite entities necessarily have to have a cause.
Click to expand...
Do they have “objective” proof for the assertion that the universe is eternal? In fact, is there objective evidence of time at all?
If they agree that the universe is finite (which they objectively have no proof for, by the way)and that it is expanding, what exists outside of it? Is there matter? Yes or no? Is there time in this region outside of the universe? Yes or no? If not then all “observable” time and matter became created and all things which are created are, by definition, not eternal. Anything non-eternal requires a creation for existence. Period. God is simply a name for this reality.
40.png
Sherlock:
“Do you see a pattern here? You are defining the universe as: that which must have a cause. You define god as: that which does not have a cause. You provide no support for either notion.”
“The assertion that the universe must have a cause, but god does not, is utterly arbitrary – there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Formulating additional arbitrary assertions changes nothing.”
Click to expand...
First off, there is no “observation” which leads to the conclusion that observations are required to substantiate assertions. This is a philosophical construct not a scientific, observable entity. The assertions being promoted regarding an eternal, uncaused being are indeed based on observation of our universe and involve using philosophy to understand them.
What is your observation that contradicts my assertion? Can you show me something eternal? If you can’t show me something eternal why should I believe it exists eternally? If I can show you something that ceased to exist, comes into existence and then ceases to exist then you have to explain my observations of the finite, noneternal nature of elements of the universe. Your problem is that you view the universe as simply space, matter and time. That doesn’t quite cut it: you have left out life. Does life exist? You know it does though you can’t fully justify that belief based on scientific observation. Science was never meant to explain everything: it is meant to explain the physical universe - nothing else. What exactly is this life thing? Is it real? Life comes into being and goes out of being - it is readily observable. Where did it come from? Where does it go? Is there a scientifically verifiable observation to validate that life exists? No. Non-living entities exhibit all the characteristics of life: growth, motion, reproduction etc. Scientific observations can validate physical signs consistent with the presence of life, but they don’t measure the existence of life per se. Much like we cannot measure the nature of a thought. It exists and we can measure “electrical signals in the brain” but we have no idea what the nature of the thought was. Precisely what happens to the “life” of someone when they die? Where exactly did it come from and where does it go to? To say that we are all “reincarnated” doesn’t correlate with the scientific observation that the universe didn’t exist as it does now and there was definitely no “observable” life a billion years ago.
So all the life we observe “came to be” at some point “in time”.
It is no great stretch to conclude that life was created and that the creator of life is not limited to the boundaries of all other living entities. We have simply promoted a name for this entity: god.

Good luck,

Phil
 
I think most philosophers, even Catholic ones, acknowledge that Aquinas’ Five Ways are not logically valid. They are not really five separate proofs, but one comprehensive proof. Unfortunately, they all seem to fall into the same fallacy, which I once heard described as the Birthday Fallacy.
  1. Everything we see has a cause.
  2. Every effect has a preceeding cause.
  3. Causes can’t go back infinitely.
    Therefore, there must be a single un-caused cause (i.e., God).
Even if we accept premise 3, the conclusion doesn’t follow. Why can’t there be two un-caused causes? Or 3? Or 50?

The Birthday Fallacy says that everyone has a birthday; therefore, we all have the same birthday. The Birthday Fallacy assumes that there is exactly one cause/effect chain (which, for the sake of argument, doesn’t go back forever). God is said to be the first cause. The problem is that there is no good reason for assuming that there is exactly one chain.

Personally, I believe that the existence of God can be known through the use of reason alone. I just haven’t figured out how to prove it. I think an a priori proof is more likely to be successful than an a posteriori proof like Aquinas’. I’ve been intruiged by St. Anselm’s proof, but I have yet to convince myself that it works.

Incidentally, the Church teaches de fide that God can be known by His his visible works (somewhere in Vatican I, I believe). Maybe that would imply that an a posteriori proof is possible. It also might be circular reasoning…
 
40.png
neophyte:
Biblereader,
Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that faith and proof are mutually exclusive – they aren’t. In fact, Christian faith is most mature when it understands the factual evidence.

Also, take a close look at Aquinas’ text; the conclusion most certainly does not contradict the premises. Claims to the contrary always result from a mis-statement of the argument, such as that found at the talk/origins site (“every event has a cause”).
Click to expand...
Argument One from Aquinas…

Premise: “Everything, therefore, is moved by something else.”

Conclusion: “Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing—and this all men know as God.”

Each of the arguments either expressly or impliedly violates language, or plays with language to hide the violation of language.

In the end, “being-ness” =/= “created-ness.”

And “created-ness” simply says nothing certain about “un-created-ness.”

When you say, “Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that faith and proof are mutually exclusive,” you are boot-strapping. The very thing to be proven is, “Are faith and proof mutually exclusive on the subject of God’s existence – in other words, on that one thin point, is there intersection?”

It’s not a “trap.” They are mutually exclusive.

Christianity survives in spite of the self-deception of the Scholastics on that one point.
 
40.png
BibleReader:
Argument One from Aquinas…

Premise: “Everything, therefore, is moved by something else.”
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could quote your source. My copy of the Summa is the translation by Anton C. Pegis, (University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), from which I quote:
“Everything that is moved is moved by another”
Click to expand...
This translation is consistent with the others that I’ve seen, although I don’t know Latin and haven’t read the untranslated text. Again, it appears that you have mis-stated the argument.
40.png
BibleReader:
When you say, “Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that faith and proof are mutually exclusive,” you are boot-strapping. The very thing to be proven is, “Are faith and proof mutually exclusive on the subject of God’s existence – in other words, on that one thin point, is there intersection?”
Click to expand...
In order to answer this question, the first thing to do is to define what belief, faith and proof are; it can hardly be boot-strapping to do so.
 
40.png
neophyte:
although I don’t know Latin and haven’t read the untranslated text.
Click to expand...
I know latin. Here is the statement you are referring to. I suspect it’s pretty self evident even if you don’t read latin but your text is indeed the right one:

Omne autem quod movetur, ab alio movetur.

For indeed everything which is moved, is moved by another.
 
…by the way you wouldn’t think I knew latin because my handle contains a latin error, the correct expression would be adnauseam since nausea is a feminine noun.

Alas, my handle has been elected, and can’t be edited. Must be a Calvanist among the tech support staff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top