|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 13, 2023 0:49:17 GMT
1. The First Way: Motion. 2. The Second Way: Efficient Cause. 3. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity. 4. The Fourth Way: Gradation. 5. The Fifth Way: Design. General Remarks:
* Later thinkers classed all five ways as variants of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. Cosmology is the study of the origins and structure of the universe; each of the five ways is a reflection on the conditions which must have been in place in order for the universe, or some observed feature of the universe, to come about. * The fourth way looks, at first blush, like a variation on the ontological argument. But like the other four ways, it's a posteriori. Anselm's argument is a priori. It is criticized by Aquinas in Summa I.II.1 (p. 417). Further, says Aquinas (I.II.2), any demonstration of the existence of God must be from the effects of God known to us; it must be a posteriori. * The fifth way resembles a version of the teleological argument, or argument from design. Though the canonical argument from design is of much later vintage (17 Century), Aquinas might not object to this identification. The teleological argument, after all, is a posteriori. The First Way: Motion
1. All bodies are either potentially in motion or actually in motion. 2. "But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality" (419). 3. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect. 4. Therefore nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality with respect to motion 5. Therefore nothing can move itself; it must be put into motion by something else. 6. If there were no "first mover, moved by no other" there would be no motion. 7. But there is motion. 8. Therefore there is a first mover, God. The Second Way: Efficient Cause
1. Nothing is the efficient cause of itself. 2. If A is the efficient cause of B, then if A is absent, so is B. 3. Efficient causes are ordered from first cause, through intermediate cause(s), to ultimate effect. 4. By (2) and (3), if there is no first cause, there cannot be any ultimate effect. 5. But there are effects. 6. Therefore there must be a first cause for all of them: God. The Third Way: Possibility and Necessity
1. "We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be:" contingent beings. 2. Everything is either necessary or contingent. 3. Assume that everything is contingent. 4. "It is impossible for [contingent beings] always to exist, for that which can not-be at some time is not." 5. Therefore, by (3) and (4), at one time there was nothing. 6. "That which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing." 7. Therefore, by (5) and (6), there is nothing now. 8. But there is something now! 9. Therefore (3) is false. 10. Therefore, by (2), there is a necessary being: God. The Fourth Way: Gradation 1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others. 2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X. 3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good. 4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good. 5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God" (420). The Fifth Way: Design
1. We observe that natural bodies act toward ends. 2. Anything that acts toward an end either acts out of knowledge, or under the direction of something with knowledge, "as the arrow is directed by the archer." 3. But many natural beings lack knowledge. 4. "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God" (420). home.csulb.edu/~cwallis/100/aquinas.htmlDo you agree or disagree with Thomas Aquinas? |
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on May 13, 2023 6:29:20 GMT
I have no idea what any of this means 😂
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on May 14, 2023 3:09:09 GMT
A lot of this boils down to time and the assumption that everything goes backwards in time to something else that happens within time. The first argument leads into quantum murkiness and is difficult to answer. The second can lead to endless arguments and assumes that everything happens within the structure of linear time. We don't know that for sure, and the fact that it's been argued so intensely suggests that it may not be true.
The Third Way is probably the best argument out of the five but it seems to have the same flaw as . The part that I disagree with is 6. If that were the case, then what already existed to cause the existence of god? It's not much different from argument 2 in that regard when it gets down to it.
The Fourth Way seems to have an unstated premise between two and three. Goodness is a thing among others and thus can be ranked in comparison to X. But that doesn't matter. Goodness isn't necessarily a literal thing. But if we assume that it is just a way of ordering things from greater to less in all ways, then there are two stumbling blocks. One, that there is necessarily any limit to the amount of goodness and thus a thing that is most good. If there is a limit to the amount of goodness, which incidentally, would put a limit on the possibilities of god, just because you can envision something existing doesn't mean it exists in actuality. Thus there is the possibility of great things which could exist and don't, and likewise a god could exist but doesn't necessarily.
The Fifth Way is just a bad argument made out of ignorance.
That's my take on those five arguments. Let me know if there's something I got wrong.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 15, 2023 13:26:44 GMT
I'm generally not a fan of Richard Dawkins, but his take on the Fourth Way is quite funny. Paraphrasing here: 'Things that are smelly must resemble a smelliest thing and that smelliest thing is what we call God.'
It's worth noting that Aquinas was probably trying to explain what God is to those who already believed in him rather than trying to prove God to a sceptic - he talks of ways to know God rather than to prove God.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 15, 2023 13:36:49 GMT
The Third Way is probably the best argument out of the five but it seems to have the same flaw as . The part that I disagree with is 6. If that were the case, then what already existed to cause the existence of god? It's not much different from argument 2 in that regard when it gets down to it. The Third Way basically argues that there must be something necessary that exists or else nothing would exist at all. But if you look at the world, everything in it appears to be contingent, therefore the necessary element must be outside the world. In a way it works, but the necessary element could be something non-intelligent that gave rise to the contingent world such as the quantum field. However, Aquinas' five ways are meant to be read together so although the first three ways could apply to something unintelligent, the Fifth couldn't and then the Fourth gives the entity qualities that you couldn't really apply to something like a quantum field. So if all five arguments were sound, we would come up with something that could probably be fairly called God. Unfortunately, while the first three ways kind of work (though not perfectly - Aquinas with weak justification rules out a causal chain of contingency which might itself be necessary), the Fifth Way, while probably compelling at the time, falls when this apparent purpose can be explained away by natural selection. Meanwhile the Fourth Way just isn't a very good argument and it says a lot that even Christian philosophers have largely ignored it. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on May 18, 2023 22:31:04 GMT
Wherever there’s a gap in our understanding, people rush to plug the gap with God. But the trouble with gaps is that science has the annoying habit of coming along and filling them. Darwin filled the biggest gap of all, and we should have the courage to expect that science will eventually fill the gaps that remain. Have you noticed, by the way, how theologians love to loftily disown the God-of-the-gaps. They then go right ahead and invoke the God-of-the-gaps at every opportunity.
Richard Dawkins
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 19, 2023 9:52:19 GMT
and we should have the courage to expect that science will eventually fill the gaps that remain.
Bordering on scientism there |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on May 21, 2023 1:30:46 GMT
Disagree.
1st way: non sequitur. By what reasoning must the prime mover be God, or even sentient? What if movement was the original state?
2nd way: special pleading. If nothing is the efficient cause of itself, by what reason is God exempt from this predicate?
3rd way: more non sequiturs. This is essentially a reskinned prime mover argument, and the jumping to conclusions is identical.
4th way: yet more non sequiturs, and even self-contradictory. Because Aquinas also includes subjective qualities such as "good" here, the same entity must be the source of the ultimate "evil" as well. The source cannot be sentient; or, if sentient, must necessarily be utterly mad.
5th way: insane logic. Fails already at the first hurdle, because we do NOT observe that natural bodies act towards ends. We can identify a beginning and an end to an event, like an avalanche or a lightning strike, but that does not mean there was ever a GOAL. Merely cause and effect. This requires neither knowledge, nor direction of anything with knowledge.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 22, 2023 8:45:44 GMT
1st way: non sequitur. By what reasoning must the prime mover be God, or even sentient? What if movement was the original state? As I said above, the five ways are not meant to be independent proofs of an established idea of God. Each one is meant to show a basic metaphysical truth: 1: A prime mover exists 2: A first cause exists 3: Something must exist necessarily 4: There is an ultimate standard of goodness 5: There is something that is directing nature towards goals Put these all together (and make a bit of a logical leap that they must all apply to the same entity) and you have a very basic idea of a God existing. Of course, it's still a million miles from the Christian concept of God but Thomas did not deny this. He considered that human reason could only discover a basic idea of God but revelation was necessary for us to know that God's full nature. Unfortunately the fourth way is very weak and natural selection invalidates the fifth. Meanwhile the first three ways could be explained by an unintelligent natural entity. What he means by this is why do plants grow towards the light, why do animals know to eat to survive etc? His views is some intelligence must be instilling them with these purposes. Darwin pretty much blew this idea of the water but it was probably pretty compelling in the 12th Century. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2023 11:28:50 GMT
All five ways are significant because none of them are trying to prove the existence of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds. Rather they deal with abstractions that have nothing necessarily anthropomorphic about them. Most of the arguments about the existence of a god are the result of people who cannot communicate about abstractions.
When atheists try to prove there is no god they generally address the old man with long white hair and a beard.
The third one is the one most people I know use. It is most like the first law of thermodynamics which can be reworded, "everything is contingent." Or rather everything in our experience is contingent, but God is not.
The first three require atheists to believe in "infinite regression," which is often considered more absurd than any religion. Infinite regression cannot explain the origin of life on previously molten planet for example. In very ancient times some eastern philosophers assumed the Earth just always existed. Infinite regression might explain life easily if that were true. Life just always existed on the always existing Earth. Of course no one with any sense of modern science believes the Earth just always existed. Seeing that the Earth was likely molten at one time the atheists now have to believe in life being brought from other celestial bodies to Earth by some rather extraordinary space travel. It is why they do not depend much on infinite regression to explain the origin of life and rather try to extend evolution to make it appear life could begin with some sort of spontaneity after the Earth cooled sufficiently.
It's obvious Dawkins missed the point about gradation in order to make a bad joke. He only made it apparent that atheists do not deal well with abstractions.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 22, 2023 15:18:36 GMT
The first three require atheists to believe in "infinite regression," Infinite regression is one option but a causal loop would remove the need of a prime mover or a first cause too. I think the third way is harder to deal with but all it shows is that something must exist necessarily which an atheist doesn't have to deny. In fact an atheist could agree with all of the first 3 ways - they just wouldn't think they amount to God. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 22, 2023 21:33:06 GMT
The first three require atheists to believe in "infinite regression," Infinite regression is one option but a causal loop would remove the need of a prime mover or a first cause too. I think the third way is harder to deal with but all it shows is that something must exist necessarily which an atheist doesn't have to deny. In fact an atheist could agree with all of the first 3 ways - they just wouldn't think they amount to God. It is obvious that the original point is lost. The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps "Deists.") They believed that would impair their ability to dictate to others. It probably would make them depend more on persuasion than force, and that would require skills they don't have.
What has happened over time is that their theories of the origin of life have become more and more absurd in the light of developing science. Now they actually introduce more disorder in the universe than any established religion. "Causal loops,"" multiverses," and even on close examination, "infinite regression," are more an assault on order and logic than any religion. Yet they smile and say, "See, no god," as though they accomplished anything.
I think it would be fair to say that atheism "peaked" at the "Reason Rally" on the National Mall in Washington D.C. on March 24, 2012. I suspect airing their ideas in public was not effective because their worldview is too simple. They realized they had joined a discussion with greater depth than they had previously assumed. They found themselves unprepared.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 24, 2023 0:30:51 GMT
The first three require atheists to believe in "infinite regression," Infinite regression is one option but a causal loop would remove the need of a prime mover or a first cause too. I think the third way is harder to deal with but all it shows is that something must exist necessarily which an atheist doesn't have to deny. In fact an atheist could agree with all of the first 3 ways - they just wouldn't think they amount to God. Upon further consideration.
I am not sure what you mean by "causal loop." It sounds like something that would be prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics. It holds that there is no way back from "entropy," or the "heat death of the universe." That is unless there is some agency outside our material realm to restart things.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,670
Likes: 1,295
|
Post by The Lost One on May 24, 2023 12:36:30 GMT
I am not sure what you mean by "causal loop." Well, something along the lines of Big Bang causes the universe to expand from a singularity then after a while starts to contract again until it returns to a singularity in a Big Crunch which then expands again in another Big Bang and so on eternally. So no need for a prime mover or first cause. However, Thomas' Third Way would still hold so either this loop itself is necessary or it's contingent on a necessary entity. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 24, 2023 21:06:47 GMT
I am not sure what you mean by "causal loop." Well, something along the lines of Big Bang causes the universe to expand from a singularity then after a while starts to contract again until it returns to a singularity in a Big Crunch which then expands again in another Big Bang and so on eternally. So no need for a prime mover or first cause. However, Thomas' Third Way would still hold so either this loop itself is necessary or it's contingent on a necessary entity. I seem to remember something like that on PBS, but they called it an "oscillating universe." The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would have to be violated somehow for that to happen. It definitely suggests an agency outside the current material catalog. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 13, 2023 16:00:10 GMT
The original point of denying the existence of a god was to make the universe more orderly. Some people, not all of them "atheists," disliked the idea that a "god" might interfere in the order of things at just any time. (Some were perhaps "Deists.") They believed that would impair their ability to dictate to others. It probably would make them depend more on persuasion than force, and that would require skills they don't have. Historical evidence for this? In fact momentous events like the Reformation and their participants were those more predicated on arguing about which competing religious group should dictate their correct ways to others. It is certainly true that some of modern science is counter intuitive and, as one might expect, at its frontiers it is necessarily speculative. It is a good job some of Christianity, by way of contrast, offers clarity of logical intellectual thought such as with ideas of The Trinity. |
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Jun 14, 2023 1:43:06 GMT
tl;dr
|
|
monicah
Sophomore
@monicah
Posts: 300
Likes: 166
|
Post by monicah on Jun 14, 2023 13:52:11 GMT
Source: trust me bro
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 14:01:04 GMT
Wherever there’s a gap in our understanding, people rush to plug the gap with God. But the trouble with gaps is that science has the annoying habit of coming along and filling them. Darwin filled the biggest gap of all, and we should have the courage to expect that science will eventually fill the gaps that remain. Have you noticed, by the way, how theologians love to loftily disown the God-of-the-gaps. They then go right ahead and invoke the God-of-the-gaps at every opportunity.
Richard Dawkins
The "god-of-the-gaps" rejection of apparently "supernatural" (pardon the term) phenomena is just an excuse with a time limit that runs out. Reasonable people can and will give science more time to search for explanations, but the search for the agency of the original assembly of life from lifeless matter has far exceeded any reasonable time limit. It has been over a century and a half. The understanding of the material world is nearing completion in the sense that there are no more elements, there are no more agencies, and there have not been for decades. The argument that more is on the way soon fails now. So your time is up. You can't complain that just because you have no answer now that doesn't mean you won't have one "in a million years." That's crazy. You're not getting a million years. A god-of-the-gaps has in fact defeated you. You need to have at least some vague idea what you are talking about. The last promising path to the assembly of life from lifeless matter was "RNA soup." After several decades of watching that, and even encouraging that, it still does not go anywhere. It appears that although construction can occur, or construction > 0, it is also true that construction < destruction. That results in a characteristic maximum value of construction that can be identified in less than a million years. Guess what? It's way short of life. There was an attempt to help atheists understand these facts using the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics," but they did not have sufficient intelligence. They kept mindlessly repeating, "entropy can be reversed in an open system." Do you understand why your god-of-the-gaps excuse card is cancelled now? The "annoying" habits of science lately are assuming science has any ability to establish moral order. It has absolutely none as you can see just by turning on your TV. It is dominated by people who failed actual science. At one time long, long ago it was assumed that people who believe in a god must have failed science, but that attitude has been known to be mistaken since the 1930s. We now know that the people who do not believe in an intelligent designer failed science. Hello? If science is going to take a "million years" to explain anything then we might as well believe rocks can float in midair even without any magnetic alignment. That and any beliefs what science might do in a million years have no tradition of moral exercise found in many religious disciplines and should not attempt to replace them. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2023 14:02:41 GMT
Good for you. Then you can finish your cereal before it gets soggy. |
|
