On refutation of the Unmoved Mover

[Linusthe2nd]

My first thought is that this doesn’t really show much, at least without much more background on the Higgs boson. As you know from reading The Last Superstition, “motion” in A-T philosophy does not mean displacement over time; it refers to change in general.

So let’s concede what the objector is saying for a second, even though he is overstepping the conclusions of physics. Even if all particles were moving at the speed of light, it doesn’t follow that they are not interacting and that changes (reductions from potency to act) are not occurring. Again, “motion” in this case is neither strictly Newtonian nor Einsteinian.

Furthermore, whatever the Higgs boson is doing to cause particles to have mass (which then causes the particles to do other things like, for example, exert a force due to gravity and feel other particles gravitational forces) is an instance of causality, so even if the objector is right and the Higgs boson does bear the consequence that all particles are moving at the speed of light in the same reference frame, he’d be in trouble. (Not to mention, given relativity, I believe that there would have to be some “change” even if all of the particles were moving at the same speed.)

Human logic is “provedly subjective”? I think you would have to demand the “proof” for that claim. If it relies on human logic… then it is self-refuting. If it does not rely on human logic, then I can’t see why you would believe it.

The other problem is that the claim is simply not true, and even if it were, it would not absolve anyone of showing where the logic of Aquinas’s Five Ways goes wrong. Maybe you could say that human logic is often flawed, which would justify suspicion towards Aquinas’s arguments, but it does not in itself justify rejecting them. If the premises are mistaken, then the objector must demonstrate how so.

I think Feser should have made it clear that the notions of causality which Aristotle and Thomas’s proofs rely on are not time-dependent, ie. causes are instantaneous. If you throw a brick at a window (to borrow Feser’s example), the cause of the window’s breaking is not the event of your throwing the brick; it is the instantaneous event of the brick hitting the glass.

Furthermore, Feser makes it pretty clear that reason does not tell us that God created the universe at some point in the past but rather sustains it right now.

On the mark as usual.

Linus2nd

 

[Linux]

On the mark as usual.

Linus2nd

What post number is this?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I turn that round the other way. I reject the notion of Absolute Truth as impractical and just work with relative truth. I reject all forms of reification, and Absolute Truth is just another reified concept to go with all the others.

We both get round the problem of the lack of a distinguisher by collapsing the two concepts into one. We differ in which of the two we eliminate.

Buddhism emphasis change over stasis, so I reject the Absolute version. Abrahamic religions tend to emphasise stasis over change, so they tend to be more focused on the Absolute rather than the relative.

To me, that “implied” gives the game away. You are stepping outside the actual statement and adding in an assumption. That means the statement is not completely self-contained and so cannot be Absolute. Of course, you can continue to add explicit qualifiers to the original statement to make it both clumsy and more self-contained. However, you can never show that you have included every necessary rider, addition or assumption. Absent that proof, you can only have a relative statement or an unproven claim to an Absolute statement.

rossum

With you kind of philosophy ( ? ) there can be no common ground for a discussion with anyone, even with someone who shares the same philosophy, let alone with those who share a moderate realist philosophy like the Thomists here.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Interestingly the thread shows this principle in action. After 70 posts there’s not even agreement on what the word “truth” means, let alone whether an infinitely old world is less of a paradox than one with a beginning.

What we can say for certain is that Jesus would have answered those questions if they had anything to do with salvation.

Is this pertinent to the discussion?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, it’s surprising how many people become experts after watching one show on the Discovery channel.

But your “reasonable times” coincided with most folk not getting an education, often not even being taught to read, which persisted until relatively recently, particularly for girls. Knowledge is power, and there’s been an explosion of power through cheap books, then radio, then internet.

And let’s face it, the higher the level of education, the more flaws can be found in the unmoved mover argument.

People generally find flaws in any argument they disagree with. It is suprising the list of rationalizations one can find for engaging in ones favorite sin. The same applies when one is faced with a philosophy which threatens some deeply held conviction .

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The article you cited makes the common assumption that the argument is about God, but even in the form given by Aquinas the argument only attempts to prove a first cause rather than establish its nature.

Only by virtue of bafflement do we then throw up our hands and plead that it must be God for what else could it be (or as Thomas puts it more kindly “to which everyone gives the name of God”).

But pasta-ists would likewise assume it’s the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Yoda would assume it’s the Force, powerful it is.

I know there are supplementary arguments, but if the purpose of this type of argument is to “prove” God, it turns out there’s a much simpler alternative available even unto the unwashed, known as faith, which approves of much does Christ.

Talking like Yoda hard it is now to stop.

Just wanted to put in my two cents worth. This is the second time in this thread you have brought up faith. But what is the basis of your faith, if that is what you are relying on?

Then most of those who accept the argument also do so without understanding it!

If the machinery behind the argument really is so complicated that it requires as much training as brain surgery or quantum physics, most people won’t have that training and so can only accept or reject it as an argument from authority.

I think you are beginning to understand just how complicated the " machinery " is. As I said once before, this Philosophy, that of Thomas Aquinas was intended for professionals, especially clerics destined for the priesthood or some minor order.

In which case we have to ask what do these professional philosophers of religion think they are doing? If they can find no way to explain these complexities to the unwashed then all they can ever do is perpetuate their isolated way of life.

I mean if they can provide no evidence for their conclusions other than “trust me I’m a professional philosopher of religion”, how do we know all that training isn’t really just a lengthy acquisition of special glasses to see convoluted concepts which only exist in the minds of those who have gone through the indoctrination rites?

We aren’t dealing with Gnosticism here. Good Thomists always place the teaching of the Church ahead of philosophy. Thomas always made it clear whenever he was speaking as a man of faith or as a philosopher striving to arrive at a truth. He never preferred his philosophical predilections over faith. He always made it clear that anything he said was always subject to the teachings of faith.

Anyhow, I think this adds to my point that if after 80 posts there’s no agreement on what “truth” means, nor on whether an infinitely old universe is or isn’t a paradox, and now on who is qualified even to discuss such things, then likely objective the argument isn’t.

It this a new phenomenon to you? The fact that people disagree has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument. And this is not someing unique to philosophy. I’m a pretty old guy and it has been my experience that people rarely agree on anything. The reasons are manifold, not the least of which are pride ( sin ) and ignorance.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is false (although it is a common misconception). First, you originally said in post #79 that there were obvious problems with the argument for an Unmoved Mover, not for God. So the argument in question is not assuming that the being in question is God. Much further argumentation is required to show that the Being which is Pure Act is God - but it is not taken strictly on faith.

Thomas uses the phrase “to which everyone gives the name God” after each of the Five Ways in ST because 1). the arguments there are summaries which he fleshes out in more detail in other places, like Summa Contra Gentiles (ST was an introductory text on philosophy and theology, and most people reading it already understood the Five Ways), and 2). because he is noting that he will go on to demonstrate that the Being which is Pure Act is God (which he does go on to do). That is not part of the argument for the Unmoved Mover.

Anyone who would suggest the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a reductio ad absurdum of the argument for the Unmoved Mover does not understand how the argument actually goes. Particularly, they do not understand fundamental principles of Thomistic metaphysics, like actuality and potentiality: the Unmoved Mover could not be unmoved unless it were Pure Act, which would entail its being immaterial (since anything composed of matter can move, or change). The Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a material being and would have potentiality, so it would be contradictory to call it Pure Act.

As far as the Force goes, the objection would require a lot more argumentation. If you mean the Force as shown in the Star Wars movies… then that does not seem to be part of our reality (in the sense that we can’t use the Force for telekenesis etc.).

Faith alone can work, but doesn’t work for everyone. If the argument for an Unmoved Mover can help someone to faith who would not find it otherwise, then why object to it?

I think the argument for the Unmoved Mover, properly understood, can help a lot of otherwise obstinate people to believe - because it is a strong argument, and many people, understandably, are hesitant to make faith-based decisions that fly in the face of reason. The argument for the Unmoved Mover can help people to see that faith and reason are compatible.

Interestingly enough, it is the argument for the Unmoved Mover which rules out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but blind faith which does not.

Yes, it is widely misunderstood, even by some who support it, I agree. What is your point?

This, however, is not true. I did not say that one needs training in philosophy to understand the argument, and one certainly does not need “as much training as brain surgery or quantum physics.”

You said something to the effect of, “Educated people more easily see the flaws in the argument for the Unmoved Mover.” That is an appeal to authority, which is fallacious when there is no reason for the authority in question is qualified to assess the argument and unbiased. I brought up philosophers of religion only to propose a non-fallacious appeal to authority, since philosophers of religion are qualified to assess the argument and (in the case of atheist philosophers of religion and Christian philosophers who disagree with the First Way) are unbiased.

I am not saying that one cannot understand the argument unless one is a professional philosopher of religion. I think there are a lot of good, accessible books on the topic that would clear up most of the misconceptions (whether the people currently holding those misconceptions would yield to the argument or not). I am saying that appealing to the authority of educated people in general - who have largely been introduced to straw men, do not understand Aristotelian metaphysics (whether or not they agree with it), and have various other causes for bias - is fallacious.

Very Good.

Lins2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The article says:

Obviously these are sketches of the demonstrations for the qualities of God which cover hundreds of pages in books like Summa Theologica. But the article does not assume that the Unmoved Mover is God - I am not sure how someone could hope to make such a claim in light of the above paragraph. It explicitly addresses the common objection.

Huh? As I’ve demonstrated, the FSM is a seriously flawed candidate for the Unmoved Mover (since it could not be Pure Act), and anyone who would propose it simply does not understand the argument. The FSM is not “an example of why the assumption is wrong.”

(To be clear, the debate is over whether the argument could apply to any deity, which as the failure of the FSM example shows, is false. Cosmological arguments have been used by a variety of monotheists, so obviously it has been applied to prove the existence of both, for instance, the Christian God and Allah, who are in some senses “different.” However, what one could not claim is that Gods like Zeus or the FSM are candidates, or that the argument assumes anything about the Unmoved Mover. All it shows is that there is an Unmoved Mover/Unchanged Changer which is Pure Act, which happens to be a great conclusion if one wants to go on to prove various other qualities of said being like oneness, simplicity, omnipotence, etc.)

Hm? The argument proves that there is an Unmoved Mover, which is Being Itself. The principle of conservation of energy is just an abstraction about the material universe, not any sort of being or thing itself - and certainly not Pure Actuality, the Being responsible causally for all motion/change.

I capitalize it because I do regard the Unmoved Mover as the Christian God. (That is a step of faith, mind you, but not an assumption, since whether I believe it is the Christian God or not, the Unmoved Mover is one, is simple, is omnipotent, etc. - that much is proved with reason.)

In any case, are you looking for any reason not to respond to the actual argument for the Unmoved Mover? My capitalizing conventions are hardly relevant to the discussion at hand.

Could you restate what you mean here? I don’t understand. Are you saying that it is dishonest to say that the Unmoved Mover is the Christian God (or that I said such a thing)? I said that the argument strictly speaking does not claim to establish the existence of God, although from it we establish that Pure Act has many of the qualities of the traditionally understood monotheistic God. Going from the God of philosophical theism to the God of Christianity requires a step of faith based on the resurrection of Christ. I’ve never denied that.

Could you clarify how anyone is leaving the wrong assumption uncorrected? In this topic, Linus, Linux, and I have pointed out empther’s error in understanding, specifically because his idea that the argument relies on the impossibility of the temporal regress could lead to his making a less powerful argument. I think Catholics need education in the force of Aquinas’s Five Ways as much as atheists.

Excellent response. I suppose Innocente could be accused of insincere argumentation. But perhaps it was due to inattentive reading.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Merely listing a few attributes and saying they are somewhat similar to how Christians think of God is far from proof. There’s not even any attempt to work out how many other conceptions could have the same few attributes, there might be thousands. It’s rather like wanting to leave work on time at weekend, let’s just gloss over the details and assume.

The FSM is not intended to be taken seriously, but if its Noodly Appendage is disallowed then the god of intelligent design must also be disallowed, since one is a satire on the other, although currently I can’t remember which.

Though you could say why you think it isn’t a candidate, since the website confirms that “By design, the only dogma allowed …] is the rejection of dogma”, and Pastafarians don’t appear to agree on much other than light-hearted fun.

Your capitalizing still leaves me wondering whether you are discussing the argument or the assumptions of deity surrounding the argument. I’m happy to discuss the former, but past experience is that where they are not clearly separated, any criticism of the argument tends to be seen as a direct attack on personal beliefs and things quickly go belly up. In this type of discussion it’s important to agree to talk about the merits of the argument as is, devoid of any religious connotations, to avoid frightening the horses.

I’ve mostly only seen versions of the argument in tracts, where it is made to sound as though it proves the existence of the Christian God. To me those tracts are trying to pull the wool over peoples’ eyes, it’s more about backsides on pews and running a business than salvation.

I wasn’t making personal comments, it never occurred to me, I was commenting on those tracts which I’ve seen across many denominations.

PS Sorry ran out of time to respond to other posts today.

I’ll put in my two cents worth again. Your argumentation is insincere, and your characterizations are most uncharitable.

Polytropos made it clear that Thomas’ arguments were conclusions based on his entire philosophy. They are not statements from which his philosophy is derived. And, in his judgment, the Unmoved Mover has qualities which can only be present in the Christian God. Now you can certainly object that the Unmoved Mover does not have those basic qualities, but you must prove it, not merely assert it.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK, but look at it from my point of view. When people start “Unprovoked Capitalization” it is usually a warning not to challenge a concept which is being reified, deified, or both.

My experience before has been that challenging concepts which have been given Unprovoked Capitalization frightens the horses. And if you didn’t notice, that’s exactly what’s happened on this thread too.

Sorry but after other posts I wonder if this as just another example on this thread of breaking forum rules by insinuating that anyone who dares challenge the argument is an uneducated slob. The stickies say treat others as equals “with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching”.

Whatever, philosophy is dead, killed softly by its own advocates.

Your problem all along is that you have argued insincerely because you are obviously prejudiced against philosophy and feel justified belittling anyone agruing in its favor. Talk about " frightening the horses, " do you think we are insensible to insults and unjust insinuations?

Your opening remark was instructive." Interestingly the thread shows this principle in action. After 70 posts there’s not even agreement on what the word “truth” means, let alone whether an infinitely old world is less of a paradox than one with a beginning.

What we can say for certain is that Jesus would have answered those questions if they had anything to do with salvation. "

It is well known that some Christian religions believe of Sola Scriptura. Not all of these reject the merits of philosophy ( William Lane Craig for example, though he is no Thomist), some reject any truth except what they find in the Bible. You spoke of arguments you find on the internet which left a bad taste in your mouth, because you assumed they were using these arguments for purposes of prostylization ( a rash judgment on your part). We also have seen similar arguments coming from folks having opposing views and their object definitely was to destroy belief in God.

Now here is a question for you. The folks in the latter group will seldom be moved by appeals from the Bible or faith based on Sola Scriptura. That usually doesn’t work for most of them. Others are at times reached by philosophical arguments. And some are not reached by anything.

So don’t you think it is a good thing that there is another tool besides the Bible? So why be so opposed to it?

St. Paul certainly wasn’t opposed to it. How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I see. So you think my caution was a personal attack, an argument against you rather than your argument. Yet you think your “You have been told that the purpose of philosophy is to serve as a tool to philosophy. It was never intended for average students. [etc.]” wasn’t an an argument against people rather than their argument?

It was the second time I informed you that the purpose of philosophy was to serve Theology and the Church. I did not say average students couldn’t study it but I would not advise them to do so. I would insist that they be among the upper levels of ability because it takes some intellect and dedication to learn it. That is an honest statement, it is not an *ad hominem. * For Pete’s sake!

Your other example wasn’t ad hominem either. I said "Although come to mention it the unmoved mover argument does have attributes of a whacky theory: it’s based on arcane and somewhat convoluted concepts, makes no testable predictions, and as regards the notion that it proves a personal deity :-

"/ QUOTE]

Calling it a " whacky theory " was O.K., hey. And your little ditty from old Hans, not an ad hominem ?

So an ad hominem is only what you consider an ad hominem?.And all the rest of us can just take the slings and arrows and lump it. Sounds a little unfair to me.

That is quite obviously aimed squarely at the argument, not at the person.

Oh sure, ha.

Perhaps you could reconsider the evidence here.
I was responding to your ad hominem, which lectured me that I was uneducated and incompetent to challenge the might of your intellectual prowess. Here’s what you said: “You have been told that the purpose of philosophy is to serve as a tool to philosophy. It was never intended for average students. Unfortunately, today many average students jump in and after barely surviving 18 hours or so of philosophy feel qualified to trumpet loud and wide about all they " know. " And of course the problem is even worse for the casual " apologist " or antagonist who, after reading a paper back or two, open up on Face Book and broadcast their ignorance to the wide world. And there are many on each side displaying their ignorance daily on these forums. Today, everyone is an expert. Ignorance does not faze them in the least.”

That was a statement of fact and it was not directed at you. I am simply saying that any ordinary student who insists on studying Thomistic/Aristotelian philosophy will be lucky to pass the course of studies. That is not an ad hominem. And look over this Forum and you will find many such examples. If you don’t like that I’m sorry, it is a fact. It is not an insult. It is the truth.

You had asked me “What makes you think what you read in the Bible is true?” and I said “The Spirit” and gave 1 Cor 1:18-31 as evidence that “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.””

Ultimately that is true. But how would you prove it to an atheist?

But yet again you descend immediately into naked ad hominem, again saying I’m beneath your contempt.

Show me where.

Please either respond to the arguments or do not respond at all, enough of this lily-livered testosterone-ladled faux-philosophy, let’s see if we can’t manage to rise to the real deal.

Oh, I see, you don’t like men, they are full of man-ness, therefore it is O.K. to hurle the ad hominem " lily-livered testosterone-ladled faux-philosophy." Wow! O.K, if you will behave like a lady, I’ll behave like a gentleman.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What post number is this?

My 219, fillow the arrow if you want Polytropos’ post number. Is that what you mean?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK.

Not you, supporters in general. A lot of unnecessary emotion.

I could take this as continuing the supporters’ agenda that anyone who disagrees with the argument must perforce be in urgent need of education. But if I did want to go beyond what I’ve read in the past, Feser would not be my choice as he has always seemed agenda driven.

Did you know that Feser was an atheist at one time? Yes, he may be agenda driven, then perhaps he is upset at the wild, unfounded assaults of militant atheists. And you don’t have an agenda?

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve not read this post.

I told you some weeks ago that I would ignore all your posts in future due to the amount of time you wasted with your bad behavior, attempts at bullying, and constant personal attacks.

You know this yet you have continued to stalk me.

Whoa there Innocente, you are jumping threads! You just accused me of doing that, though that was not true. But here you are doing it and you are caught red handed!!
I guess that gives the rest of us to do it too!

There have been instances in Europe recently of teenagers committing suicide after being bullied on social network sites.

Oh brother. If we submitted this thread to an impartial jury, I’m sure they would wonder who was the bully here. You are the one making all the accusations. But your own bad and tasteless behavior is supposed to go unnoticed.

The forum rules are not there simply as etiquette, bad behavior on the internet has consequences.

Peter has not bullied you. He is just being honest and expects the same treatment!!

Go away, stop stalking me.

Forum rules ??? Screaming is O.K. I don’t think so.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Yikes! Try using your own brain!

Even if the universe was actually infinite space that would not negate the necessity of absolute locations!

Why?

BECAUSE A BODY MUST OCCUPY AN ACTUAL SPACE. Now if you will not grant that then you have no business pretending to know anything. It is self-evident and necessary.

WOW!

Again, inocente, LEARN WHAT A CONTRADICTION IS BEFORE PRETENDING TO KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY.

This is what your own authority asserts** in their very first sentence**!

Where is the centre of the universe?
There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since.

Wait a tick! Didn’t you JUST DENY that the universe IS expanding!? But your authority says that it IS “expanding”. But if it is expanding, then it is finite; if it is finite, then it has limits; if it has limits, then it has boundaries; if it has boundaries, then it will have a centre! Your authority says the universe is expanding; it cannot be otherwise that it would necessarily occupy a finite amount of space because the infinite cannot by any means expand. Even if it is just the matter (contents) in the universe (container) that is expanding away in infinite space, we could still determine the limits that the matter has reached and thus produce a boundary, albeit an expanding one.

Physicists are not philosophers. They contradict themselves and that’s not our problem. It’s theirs. Like you, they sometimes do not understand just what a contradiction is. In fact, as your own authority notes, they are frequently more competent in math than in English; consequently, they are terrible at describing their ideas and thus leave the rest of us to trust them on blind faith that their incoherence isn’t just nonsense. However, no one is obliged to put such faith in mathematicians. They are simply confused people - like the physicists who claim that the universe was produced out of nothing. Here they just manifest themselves as lousy philosophers.

Finally, your authority does not even validate your objection or point. He merely says that the Bing Bang was an explosion of space rather than of matter in space. Space didn’t exist, apparently, before the Bing Bang - but so what! All that does is give us every reason to believe that actual space is finite and not infinite.

Nope, I never said the universe is not expanding, please cite the post where you think I did.

And nope, next time you use GPS remember that it would not work if relativity made incorrect predictions, just as your computer would not work if quantum theory made incorrect predictions.

And nope, it’s called the big bang theory, not the bing bang theory. :doh2:

The big bang theory is itself an implication of relativity. It was developed by a Catholic physicist, one of many Catholic physicists.

Your ideas about space appear to be a bit eccentric. The articles I linked were to try to help you but it seems no good deed goes unpunished.

 

[inocente]

Is this pertinent to the discussion?

Yes, I was commenting on the OP. Is your question pertinent to the OP?

 

[inocente]

Just wanted to put in my two cents worth. This is the second time in this thread you have brought up faith. But what is the basis of your faith, if that is what you are relying on?

Faith is a gift, as I think the CCC agrees.

I think you are beginning to understand just how complicated the " machinery " is. As I said once before, this Philosophy, that of Thomas Aquinas was intended for professionals, especially clerics destined for the priesthood or some minor order.

It’s not very complicated, it’s only 300 words and there are only two technical words, both explained in one article in the online version.

*We aren’t dealing with Gnosticism here. Good Thomists always place the teaching of the Church ahead of philosophy. Thomas always made it clear whenever he was speaking as a man of faith or as a philosopher striving to arrive at a truth. He never preferred his philosophical predilections over faith. He always made it clear that anything he said was always subject to the teachings of faith. *

What I said was not to do with Thomas himself.

It this a new phenomenon to you? The fact that people disagree has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the argument. And this is not someing unique to philosophy. I’m a pretty old guy and it has been my experience that people rarely agree on anything. The reasons are manifold, not the least of which are pride ( sin ) and ignorance.

Yes, once we believe that everyone who disagrees with us is arrogant or ignorant then all our arguments magically work just fine. An excellent example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[inocente]

Your problem all along is that you have argued insincerely because you are obviously prejudiced against philosophy and feel justified belittling anyone agruing in its favor. Talk about " frightening the horses, " do you think we are insensible to insults and unjust insinuations?

Your opening remark was instructive." Interestingly the thread shows this principle in action. After 70 posts there’s not even agreement on what the word “truth” means, let alone whether an infinitely old world is less of a paradox than one with a beginning.

What we can say for certain is that Jesus would have answered those questions if they had anything to do with salvation. "

It is well known that some Christian religions believe of Sola Scriptura. Not all of these reject the merits of philosophy ( William Lane Craig for example, though he is no Thomist), some reject any truth except what they find in the Bible. You spoke of arguments you find on the internet which left a bad taste in your mouth, because you assumed they were using these arguments for purposes of prostylization ( a rash judgment on your part). We also have seen similar arguments coming from folks having opposing views and their object definitely was to destroy belief in God.

Now here is a question for you. The folks in the latter group will seldom be moved by appeals from the Bible or faith based on Sola Scriptura. That usually doesn’t work for most of them. Others are at times reached by philosophical arguments. And some are not reached by anything.

So don’t you think it is a good thing that there is another tool besides the Bible? So why be so opposed to it?

St. Paul certainly wasn’t opposed to it. How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )

Good of you to make my case for me, since Paul is not making a sophisticated argument only comprehensible by professional philosophers of religion, he is making a simple statement of fact:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So don’t you think it is a good thing that there is another tool besides the Bible? So why be so opposed to it?

St. Paul certainly wasn’t opposed to it. How about this: " For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ever since the cretion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal powerer and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things than have been made. ( Rom. 1: 19-20 and similarly: Acts 14: 15, 17: 27-28; Wis 13: 1-9 )
Linus2nd

It would seem inexplicable if “what can be known about God is plain to them” why so many diverse opinions about God are to be found in the minds of human beings.

Of course, it can be contended by some, as is the case in this thread, that their view is the plain truth and does not require any philosophical support, since it is plainly obvious to them what the truth is. There is no arguing with such a self-verifying contention.

I think what Paul is getting at is that the truth about God is plain and accessible to those who are absolutely pure of heart and are completely open to the truth. This does not preclude, however, that truth might also be accessible by logical or philosophical methods.

On the other hand, it does mean that truth would have to be non-contradictory and would need to be immune to debunking by philosophical argumentation. Which means it would NOT be resistant or opposed to a complete and comprehensive philosophical analysis, which makes me skeptical about some “versions” of the truth being proposed by those who wish to avoid analysis completely, as if their “knowledge” claims about God could not withstand even the most cursory examination and, in fact, are not even self-consistent.

This would be the underlying motive of some on this thread to separate out completely evidential knowledge from knowledge about God as if they are two completely independent spheres of thought. The first being objective, while the second completely subjective and not amenable to scientific or philosophical methods.

The problem with this completely subjective view of God, is that it enshrines personal opinions about God as “the truth” about God and avoids the heavy lifting of having to demonstrate the “objective” truth and validity of these.

As you have seen, discussing such a position with someone who holds to it is an exercise in futility since denial, obstruction and diversion are seen as legitimate tactics for defending the position because “subjectivity” rather than objective logic determines the means by which this kind of “truth” is to be defended.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Faith is a gift, as I think the CCC agrees.

Yes, and I said I agreed. God gives everyone the gift of Faith. But what I was driving at was how can we demonstrate to the skeptic, athiest, agnostic, oriental cultest that we are justified in that conclusion. Not very convincing unless we can give persuasive reasons for stating it.

It’s not very complicated, it’s only 300 words and there are only two technical words, both explained in one article in the online version.

I guess Thomas was and nothing but a " Dumb Ox " after all. It took him much more than that to understand Aristotle, Avicenna, Avicebron, Averroes, Maimonides, Al Farabi, Plato, etc. Nice to know we are dealing with a genius. Also nice to know you know where to find the old Catholic Encyclopedia. There is a new one by the way, came out in 1968 and is usually found in the better libraries. One of my favorite philosophers was the editor of the Philosophy section, Fr. William A. Wallace O.P., age 90 + and still active a year ago, multi-Doctorites, including Physics!.

What I said was not to do with Thomas himself.

I never thought that.

Yes, once we believe that everyone who disagrees with us is arrogant or ignorant then all our arguments magically work just fine. An excellent example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

There you go again, rash judging. I don’t think that. I think Rassum and many others here with whom I disagree are much more intelligent than I am . I think you are way off base here.

Linus2nd