The Quinque Viae: Rebuked?

[crookshanks]

An atheist posted this on another forum we’re in and now I am stuck.

---

Refuting the ‘five proofs’ of God. People really shouldn’t rely on historic claims that are illogical in the light of modern science. It’s time to put Quinquae viae down for good.

1. The Argument Of The Unmoved Mover:

This is the argument that everything that moves has a mover, and that there cannot be an infinite amount of movers, so God must be the start.

This argument is easily proven wrong, because time is continuous, and then a change in matter and therefore movement must be infinite.

1. The Argument Of The First Cause:

Everything must have a cause, and an infinite regression of causes is impossible, so the first causer is called God.

WRONG AGAIN!

There must have been a first cause in this universe, but that would have been the cause of the big bang, which started at a point called ‘singularity’ which must have been in another universe. As time is infinite there must have always been a previous cause.

1. The Argument From Contingency:

This is the argument that everything either exists or doesn’t exist, and as something can’t come from nothing; the first objects must have come from an existing being, which is God.

This argument defeats itself, as God is supernatural and therefore technically non-existent in the natural world. If God is non-existent in the natural world, then he can’t be the physical being that started everything, can he?

Anyway, the fact that something can’t come from nothing doesn’t mean there is God, because time is eternal and therefore there has always been something. This universe was once squished into a very small space called ‘singularity’ which I have already mentioned. This means there was nothing always there to create something from nothing, as there never was a point of nothing.

1. The Argument From Degree:

This is the argument that various degrees of perfection can be found throughout the universe. The existence of these perfections can only be caused by perfections themselves. The pinnacle of perfection is God.

No it isn’t though, the pinnacle of perfection is the scientific procedures which result in these ‘lesser perfections’ like the human body (which can be flawed) to exist. They are laws of nature, and thus nothing to do with God.

1. The Teleological Argument:

This is the argument that everything acts towards a certain purpose, the purpose which is intelligent, and the objects which aren’t. As these natural objects aren’t intelligent, there must be an intelligence guiding them towards their destination. This is God.

The final point and it’s still wrong. These natural things that are unintelligent (like a rock) doing something intelligent (falling to earth), are not the cause of God at all, they are cause of scientific processes (falling through gravity in the case of the rock).

Therefore there isn’t an intelligent being watching over unintelligent objects and making them do ‘intelligent things’ as Aquinas suggests. They are merely under the control of scientific processes and laws. Nothing created them; they were always there for scientific and natural reasons. They are the things that bind reality.

…

You see, at the end of the day, if you do research into any arguments for a God’s existence, and the arguments against a God’s existence, you’ll realise that just like the individual religious beliefs arguments are speculation and proven fallacies, the arguments for God are the same. The arguments against a Deities existence, like the arguments against a religious belief, are based on evidence, and so stand a lot of ground. The only difference between God and the actual religious beliefs on earth, is that the actual religions can all be proven false now, we know for a fact that they are wrong, whereas there is no irrefutable evidence against God yet, just a building ream of evidence that’s always getting bigger.

Saint Thomas Aquinas and his theory is one of the biggest arguments Theist’s use for the existence of God (in particular Christian’s, because he was a Christian).

However, his arguments can be refuted like any other. Theist’s literally have no ground on the subject, because speculation doesn’t count as evidence of any sort (except in their minds). You can’t expect Aquinas’ claims to be any good anyway; he was completely unaware of science.

 

[reggieM]

An atheist posted this on another forum we’re in and now I am stuck.

Look for the key, unproven assumptions in the response. This is not a refutation - far from it.

1. The Argument Of The Unmoved Mover:

This is the argument that everything that moves has a mover, and that there cannot be an infinite amount of movers, so God must be the start.

This argument is easily proven wrong, because time is continuous, and then a change in matter and therefore movement must be infinite.

That’s an unproven assertion (time is continuous). Prior to the existence of matter there could be no time.

1. The Argument Of The First Cause:

Everything must have a cause, and an infinite regression of causes is impossible, so the first causer is called God.

WRONG AGAIN!

There must have been a first cause in this universe, but that would have been the cause of the big bang, which started at a point called ‘singularity’ which must have been in another universe. **As time is infinite **there must have always been a previous cause.

As above, it’s simply an assertion that “time is infinite”. Time is a measurement of movement – movement requires matter. Before the universe began there was no matter, therefore, no time. So, time is not infinite. It had a beginning and therefore a First Cause.
The same is true of an infinite string of events. The string is still bound by limits and is exceeded by that which is outside the limits. Therefore, what caused the infinite string to exist? That is the First Cause (existing outside of the infinite string of events, if such thing was possible).

This argument defeats itself, as God is supernatural and therefore technically non-existent in the natural world. If God is non-existent in the natural world, then he can’t be the physical being that started everything, can he?

Another false assumption and ignorance about what “supernatural” means. This person has been mislead by atheistic-materialism since this is a pretty standard error that young believers of such make. The supernatural is not incompatible with the natural world. It it not “non-existent” in the natural world, but in fact, informs and shapes it.

Anyway,

Note this word usage. In other words, the first argument was lame so “anyway”, let’s move on to something that might make more sense. But all we see is a repeat of the same error.

the fact that something can’t come from nothing doesn’t mean there is God, because **time is eternal **and therefore there has always been something.

Again, an assertion without proof. The evidence shows that time had a beginning – with the beginning of the universe. There are a massive number of problems with the concept “time is eternal”.

This universe was once squished into a very small space called ‘singularity’ which I have already mentioned. This means there was nothing always there to create something from nothing, as there never was a point of nothing.

Again, this is very confused and easily refuted. If something existed infinitely, then it would be impossible for it not to exist. Why? Because it had an infinite amount of time to go out of existence, but never did. Therefore, it could not have the property of “non-existence”. But this is not true of any matter or energy. It all has the property of not-existing and therefore could not be infintite.

No it isn’t though, the pinnacle of perfection is the scientific procedures which result in these ‘lesser perfections’ like the human body (which can be flawed) to exist. They are laws of nature, and thus nothing to do with God.

This is too childish to waste any time on. It’s better for you to become more grounded in St. Thomas’ thought. This stuff was argued more convincingly in the 12th century by those who challenged the 5 proofs – and St. Thomas refuted them all.

Try Eitenne Gilson’s, Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas for a start or his Spirit of Medieval Philosophy. Also, see if you can find a Thomistic scholar to work with if possible.

Therefore there isn’t an intelligent being watching over unintelligent objects and making them do ‘intelligent things’ as Aquinas suggests. They are merely under the control of scientific processes and laws.

What is the origin of the processes and laws?

Nothing created them; they were always there for scientific and natural reasons. They are the things that bind reality.

This assumes that “reality” is the equivalent of “nature”.

Theist’s literally have no ground on the subject, because speculation doesn’t count as evidence of any sort

If speculation doesn’t count as evidence, how does he know that “time is infinite” or that natural laws were “always there”?

You can’t expect Aquinas’ claims to be any good anyway; he was completely unaware of science.

Utter confusion over the role of science and philosophy … not suprising, this is what we see with the new-breed of internet-atheists.

 

[crookshanks]

Thanks a lot for your reply. I did some research on time and infinity, and I did find lots of argument about that.

So are you saying the statement “time is infinite” is no more than a speculation and mustn’t be the foundation for the whole refutation?

Is it right to assume that the belief about the infinity of time is the safest choice of speculation for atheists because that belief doesn’t need a “beginner”?

This argument defeats itself, as God is supernatural and therefore technically non-existent in the natural world.

In this statement, did he basically try to refute the argument based only on his belief? (i.e. I think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.)

 

[tdgesq]

Is it right to assume that the belief about the infinity of time is the safest choice of speculation for atheists because that belief doesn’t need a “beginner”?

It is worse than just speculation. An actual infinite cannot exist, whether or not it is put in terms of a singularity and a preceding infinite number of universes. The Kalam Cosmological Argument offered by William Lane Craig and others demonstrate by set theory that an actual infinite set of events is mathematically impossible. You can check it out here: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

 

[1holycatholic]

It is worse than just speculation. An actual infinite cannot exist, whether or not it is put in terms of a singularity and a preceding infinite number of universes. The Kalam Cosmological Argument offered by William Lane Craig and others demonstrate by set theory that an actual infinite set of events is mathematically impossible. You can check it out here: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

There are others writing on the subject of the impossibility of infinite past time. Fr. Robert Spitzer has written about the Hilbertian Prohibition of Achieved Infinite Sequences. I don’t recall if he refers to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

There aren’t any valid refutations for the Quinque Viae. Every attempt to do so that I’ve seen misrepresents the arguments presented by Aquinas in order to make their case.

 

[reggieM]

So are you saying the statement “time is infinite” is no more than a speculation and mustn’t be the foundation for the whole refutation?

Yes, absolutely. It is an assertion without evidence and impossible to prove.

Is it right to assume that the belief about the infinity of time is the safest choice of speculation for atheists because that belief doesn’t need a “beginner”?

Yes, definitely. Atheists were gaining a lot of power against religious faith when scientists claimed that the universe was infinite. This meant that the universe did not have a beginning, so it was difficult to see how there could be a Creator. Then, those scientists were proven wrong with data regarding the Big Bang (which your atheist accepts) and this was a problem because the Big Bang looks a lot like the act of Creation.

In this statement, did he basically try to refute the argument based only on his belief? (i.e. I think it is wrong, therefore it is wrong.)

Exactly right. He simply made an assertion. It’s actually a statement of faith. He makes a claim about God and then tries to define what the supernatural is. So, he tries to put his own personal limits on what God can do – but this is all the work of theology which explains what God is and what the supernatural is.

 

[reggieM]

It is worse than just speculation. An actual infinite cannot exist, whether or not it is put in terms of a singularity and a preceding infinite number of universes. The Kalam Cosmological Argument offered by William Lane Craig and others demonstrate by set theory that an actual infinite set of events is mathematically impossible. You can check it out here: ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

That was an excellent page describing the Kalam Argument. The explanation of the mathematical problem of “actually infinite” things was excellent. Another way to say the same thing is that an infinite thing is already completed and fulfilled. There cannot be something that is more or less infinite. On the other hand, a potentially infinite string must have had a beginning in time.

 

[crookshanks]

Thanks a lot for all of your replies. I do not have much information about St. Thomas’s works, so I immediately get stumped once someone offers a “rebuttal”.

By the way, here’s where he got the info:
beyonddogma1.blogspot.com/

beyonddogma1.blogspot.com/2008/10/saint-thomas-aquinasepic-fail-quinquae.html

It is worse than just speculation. An actual infinite cannot exist, whether or not it is put in terms of a singularity and a preceding infinite number of universes. The Kalam Cosmological Argument offered by William Lane Craig and others demonstrate by set theory that an actual infinite set of events is mathematically impossible. You can check it out here: ourworld.compuserve.com/homep…amey/kalam.htm

Wow, thanks a lot for the link. I learned a lot from it.

Is this William Craig the same William Craig in the book “God?”

 

[1holycatholic]

Thanks a lot for all of your replies. I do not have much information about St. Thomas’s works, so I immediately get stumped once someone offers a “rebuttal”.

By the way, here’s where he got the info:
beyonddogma1.blogspot.com/

beyonddogma1.blogspot.com/2008/10/saint-thomas-aquinasepic-fail-quinquae.html

Wow, thanks a lot for the link. I learned a lot from it.

Is this William Craig the same William Craig in the book “God?”

This book titled God?

Yes. He’s in that book. I have a copy.

 

[crookshanks]

This book titled God?

Yes. He’s in that book. I have a copy.

I was talking about this God? book.

 

[1holycatholic]

I was talking about this God? book.

It looks like he’s in that one too.

 

[survive]

1. The Argument Of The Unmoved Mover:
   …
   This argument is easily proven wrong, because time is continuous, and then a change in matter and therefore movement must be infinite.

That doesn’t follow at all. It actually just dodges the issue, or fails to grasp it in the first place. Everything that changes (matter, energy – the world of nature) has a cause. That which doesn’t change does not have a cause and also does not fall into the category of nature, for that which doesn’t have a beginning violates the laws of nature. Time has a beginning; time is part of nature. The beginning has a cause. To create a change, a new thing, when time does not yet exist, is to violate a law of nature. Only that which is not part of nature can do that. That is what “supernatural” means.

1. The Argument Of The First Cause…
   There must have been a first cause in this universe, but that would have been the cause of the big bang, which started at a point called ‘singularity’ which must have been in another universe. As time is infinite there must have always been a previous cause.

Time isn’t infinite. Regressing the origin of time and space to different universes solves zero problems with this argument and in fact is reminiscent of the story about the old woman studying astronomy. The instructor says the earth is held in place by gravity. She says, “I’m afraid you’re wrong, young man. The earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.” He says, “Where does that turtle stand?” “The back of another turtle.” “Aha, but where does that turtle stand?” She shakes her head, smiles gently and says, “It’s no use, young man, it’s turtles all the way down.”

1. The Argument From Contingency:
   …
   This argument defeats itself, as God is supernatural and therefore technically non-existent in the natural world. If God is non-existent in the natural world, then he can’t be the physical being that started everything, can he?

Anyway, the fact that something can’t come from nothing doesn’t mean there is God, because time is eternal and therefore there has always been something. This universe was once squished into a very small space called ‘singularity’ which I have already mentioned. This means there was nothing always there to create something from nothing, as there never was a point of nothing.

Still based on the absurdity of infinite time, and completely unaware what “supernatural” means.

1. The Argument From Degree:
   …
   No it isn’t though, the pinnacle of perfection is the scientific procedures which result in these ‘lesser perfections’ like the human body (which can be flawed) to exist. They are laws of nature, and thus nothing to do with God.

Strange assumption Number One – “the pinnacle of perfection is the scientific procedures”. No actual support for this strange notion is included here, and it is not an argument but an assertion without reason given. Strange assumption Number Two – “They are laws of nature, and thus nothing to do with God.” Assertion, not argument, and utterly devoid of reason or even reasonability.

1. The Teleological Argument:
   …
   The final point and it’s still wrong. These natural things that are unintelligent (like a rock) doing something intelligent (falling to earth), are not the cause of God at all, they are cause of scientific processes (falling through gravity in the case of the rock).

Therefore there isn’t an intelligent being watching over unintelligent objects and making them do ‘intelligent things’ as Aquinas suggests. They are merely under the control of scientific processes and laws. Nothing created them; they were always there for scientific and natural reasons. They are the things that bind reality.

“They were always there” – False. The existence of scientific laws says nothing about purposes and everything about patterns – an unrelated topic.
…

You see, at the end of the day, if you do research into any arguments for a God’s existence, and the arguments against a God’s existence, you’ll realise that just like the individual religious beliefs arguments are speculation and proven fallacies, the arguments for God are the same.

This assertion falls flat on its face here as always.

The arguments against a Deities existence, like the arguments against a religious belief, are based on evidence, and so stand a lot of ground.

This author is only one of the latest in a long line of people asserting this while utterly failing to demonstrate it in any way.

The only difference between God and the actual religious beliefs on earth, is that the actual religions can all be proven false now, we know for a fact that they are wrong, whereas there is no irrefutable evidence against God yet, just a building ream of evidence that’s always getting bigger.

None of which “ream of evidence” has ever been seen so far, though, and his/her statement that “we know for a fact that (all religions) are wrong” has to be one of the most breathtakingly false assertions I have ever heard. S/he has offered no reason to accept it, and no one else ever has either.

However, his arguments can be refuted like any other.

But they never have been.

Theist’s literally have no ground on the subject, because speculation doesn’t count as evidence of any sort (except in their minds). You can’t expect Aquinas’ claims to be any good anyway; he was completely unaware of science.

False assertions: That theists have no ground; that we accept speculation as evidence; that Aquinas was unaware of science.
Summary: The author has offered absolutely nothing to support these assertions and in fact is exceedingly unlikely to have anything to offer, for no one ever has that I have read so far. S/he appears not to understand what the word “evidence” or the word “argument” or the word “refuted” means, for example.

 

[cpayne]

The Quinque Viae: rebuked often, not yet refuted.

 

[tdgesq]

Wow, thanks a lot for the link. I learned a lot from it.

Is this William Craig the same William Craig in the book “God?”

I am glad it was helpful, and yes it is the same William Craig. If you do not want to purchase the book, you can do the next best thing and listen to Craig’s debates on Philvaz’s website here: bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#WilliamLaneCraig

Of interest is Craig’s debate with then atheist Antony Flew. It is notable not because it is a particularly good debate (Flew was not at his best imo, and new hypotheses in the area of cosmology have since developed), but because Flew later became a deist - believing in the Aristotelian conception of God, which is the philosophical basis for Aquinas’ first three arguments for God’s existence. Craig comes right out of the chute with the Kalam variation on the Cosmological Argument.

The hypothesis that there is infinite time, infinite causes, infinite movement is not based upon observable data. So far as I can see it is not testable and, therefore, not falsifiable. Based on modern set theory, it leads to mathematical contradictions per Craig. It is not that the concept of infinity is useless in mathematics. It clearly is useful, just as negative quantities are useful but are not found - cannot be found - in actual existence.

Besides all of this, the assertion that there are an infinite number of causes lacks explanatory power. It is the equivalent of a scientific and even philosophical “punt” of the question of cause and effect, which is precisely what science sets itself about to explain every day. The question we want an answer to is this: What is/are the cause(s) of existence? To say that there is an infinite number of causes is to fail. It is the equivalent of saying that we cannot know the cause of existence because there are an endless number of such causes to investigate. It is not an explanation of existence. It is, at best, an admission that we will never be able to explain the causes of existence.