verklingen

The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas put forward what he considered to be 5 points which prove the existence of God. What do you think about these points? Are they refutable? Are they illogical? Are they inconsistent?

Indulge in his work before posting, please:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JcPizwink

I think he's right on. He's basically arguing (smartly) that there has to be a first. Infinity GOES ON forever but it STARTED somewhere. And even if the case can be made that infinity has gone on forever (IE no beginning) the concept of infinity is therefore God...neverending.

Strikes me as a roundabout way of saying that God has to exist because God is defined as the unknown source. Which everyone, even atheists, admit exists. No one knows the answers, so therefore the answers are God.

Cool post. I'll have to read it again later tonight to see if I'm still in synch.

kRad

From what I got from that is that whatever we created for the first time that didnt exist is what our thought created into reality, the thought created the action thus with our knowledge and what we have learned the next action is just another cause from an effect, but where did this first action stem from. I see what he is saying is cause and effect a never ending chain of actions which he says stems from one source.

I may completely not understand what he is trying to say but I think we lost that whole sence of our source far back when we got caught up in this place by lableing everything. I create the cause so we had to have created the effect so since the beginning even possibly before life or life before this life was created we were the ones to create this life as a cause and now we are the effect. Meaning we are all part of this all mighty source so we are the creator, the created living in this world of cause and effect so there for we are "GOD" "the source" "the other". Then again we could just be speaking jibberish because we were the ones to create what we know and how we understand each other.

__________________
Are you in the know?

snapshot

Whatever you've read or heard about God is obviously not the fully story.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

Ego Tripping

This has been something that I feel is always going to be out of reach of understanding through logic. It must be experienced and even when it is, it fades as fast as a memory the next day. Thought creates Action but Action incites Thought, so which came first? IMO, at the same time. This is Paradox though, always meant to lead you in a circle because thats why its Infinite.

Even Existance doesn't understand why its here.

__________________

The Rev

Of course there is a God. You are reading His post right now.



The Rev

__________________

Baise

verklingen

Not entirely, my friend!

This is only a logical paradox when taken into consideration under material conditions. A cause and an effect cannot take place simultaneously under the universal creation (our reality) because one of the main attributes of this creation is time. Time was woven into the fabric of our universe, so anything which existed before the universal creation (the creator or mover: God) could have been causing its own existence by its own means.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Kishar

If you can give me a good explanation of who/what GOD is, then I'll decide whether I believe he/it exists.
All this jibber jabber everyone posts just makes it too confusing. I believe it's right under our noses but we're too blind to see it. Whatever it is. bongsmilie

__________________
Those Americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted the American eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. Now, many of those same people, afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a turtle. But we prefer to retain the eagle as it is--flying high and striking hard. "FDR"

verklingen

Due to the constraints of the material nature (physical laws), there must be a cause for every effect. The effect which bore our existence was the creation of the universe, but what was the cause? Every intelligent person must ask this question, and the only answer to be come up with is God. This is the only explination, whether you consider it good or not.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

JMOxLLELLO

I dont believe in god, i believe in evolution and the big bang thory....but seriously sit back and think of this :

If infinity goes on FOREVER, and there HAS to be a start, and if you belive god started this.... WHO CREATED GOD? he cant create himself....and if someobne created him...who created that someone???

It really makes u think

bongsmilie

verklingen

^
I posted this in another forum, but its just as pertinent here:

-------------------------------------

When people declare that all existence must have an origin, and that this origin must be God, it is very natural for a skeptic to ask "who created God?" Creation implies a beginning, and beginning is indicative of being limited by time. But God is not limited by time, this is the essence of being eternal. Krishna states in the Bhagavad-Gita:


This translates as "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." So it can be seen that God and His extensions have no beginning and no end, so it can never be said that God was created. This is a long way of saying "He simply is," but the fact is that beginnings and ends are concepts which have no place in the eternal.

-------------------------------------

As for the big bang, who set that bang in motion? And for evolution, who created this process of life? Explosions never yield ordered creation, and chance combinations of matter never yield ordered life. Science has put alot of effort into propagating these concepts, but all they amount to are unprovable speculation.

If the universal order was enacted by a haphazard explosion, a scientist ought to be able to create a city with a "small bang." Likewise, if life is so easily created from matter, surely a scientist can create a blade of grass. But no, a scientist can do neither of these things. Yet still they claim this is how our universe and the life within it came into existence. It really is madness.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Liquid Karma

Awesum posts this is a nice thread.

Who wants hash? Join the mailing lists

Frodo

Aquinas, in developing this argument, assumes that God requires no mover, which is a faith-based assertion. Essentially he's already moved outside of the realm of logic to one entirely supported by his own personal faith, which makes this a poor argument for God's existence.

I respond to this merely by saying that time extends infinitely backwards, just as it seems to extend infinitely forwards. There is no "beginning" to it.

Mr. Aquinas would do well to study mathematics. We often look at integrals, for example, that are bounded by infinity in the positive and negative direction. When we evaluate these integrals at any point, they're affected by the behavior they've experienced previously - which, according to Aquinas, is impossible.

The idea that the chain of efficient causes would not work if it extended infinitely far backwards is incorrect.

Again, this is countered by the simple argument that things have always existed, e.g. all of the matter in the entire universe. Aquinas' understanding of the existence of things was incredibly limited, and that shows in this proof. If two people create a child, for example, Aquinas would say that that thing "came into existence" - today we know that preexisting matter and energy was just rearranged into the configuration of a child.

Rubbish. Goodness, nobility, and truth are completely subjective and human-created. We have commonly accepted standards for them but there is no absolute.

Entirely subjective and based on Thomas' own perceptions. For this reason I discard this "proof" entirely.

Time extends infinitely far back. So this big bang is likely one in an infinitely long string of bangs, extending infinitely far back. Easy.

As for evolution, no one "created" life - it just happened.

They do, the odds are just astronomically against it.

And he may well be able to, given four billion years to let the effects of that explosion propagate throughout the universe.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding you have about the commonly purported origins of the universe - the argument is not "there was an explosion, and ordered systems of planets flew out from the center of it, complete with trees, flowers, and fuzzy rabbits". The explosion threw matter across a colossally vast space, and that matter eventually condensed and formed planets, at least one of which had the proper combination of conditions to support carbon-based life forms. Not a quick process, and certainly not comparable to throwing TNT into the side of a mountain.

Our understanding of science is not perfect. Far from it, in fact. Just because some things are not possible given our current understanding doesn't mean they're not possible at all.

No more mad than me suggesting intangible gnomes (which may as well be what "god" is) magicked all of reality into being.

JahBohl

Oh, the same Thomas Aquinas who refers to women as "defective and misbegotten" in Summa Theologica.

The "primer mover" argument......ho hum. We are still left with the question- "Why is there something rather than nothing?" So why invoke a potentially nonexistent God to explain a universe which we know exists?

Well, if you say the "god" was always there (that is he is uncaused) then one could hold that Aquinas' argument succeeds without believing that God exists. There could be multiple uncaused causes--multiple gods, say--or the uncaused cause could be an unintelligent, impersonal force. So no, god is not the "only explaination".


By defining "god" as mearly the "unknown source" you basically define most people's idea of god out of existence. "God" to most theists means an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibelevolent being, not just the "unknown source" or "nature".

Honestly, we don't know WHAT set the big bang in motion or how the process of life started, although I find the theory of abiogenisis very plausible. But it's very easy just to say "god did it" and be done with the questions.....it's the easy way out if you ask me.



You're the Yahooka God for sure! (or is it Lunaria?)

__________________
"If you know what life is worth, then you would look for yours right here on Earth" ~Peter Tosh

I'm in favor of it as long as it's multiple choice. ~Kurt Rambis, on drug testing

JahBohl

ass gnomes?

__________________
"If you know what life is worth, then you would look for yours right here on Earth" ~Peter Tosh

I'm in favor of it as long as it's multiple choice. ~Kurt Rambis, on drug testing

Frodo

First time I've seen that one. I like it.

verklingen

Frodo, I wish you had read all of my posts because I'm going to be repeating myself fairly often in considering all of your points. Here goes.

A mover causes a motion, and the effect is that the motion is transfered to an object which then moves due to this original motion. This is a cryptic way of saying effects follow causes. But the very word "follow" implies a set grid wherein things or circumstances are existing at certain points. We name this grid time.

Materially, everything must have an origin, and that origin is very particular. A son cannot come from a stone, he originates from a father. But beyond the material, these particulars are no longer present. A son can be his own father or a daughter can be her mother's mother and so forth. This is due to the lack of any material constraint, namely time. God is not subject to these modes, and so He is not subject to having a beginning or an end or even a middle, He simply is.

Ill illustrate your point with the following situation.

You have set up a very nice circle of upright dominoes. When you set one domino into motion, it knocks the adjacent domino forward into the next domino, and so on. Eventually, all the dominoes are resting on the floor. To assume that efficient causes extend back in time indefinitely and proceed forward indefinately -- and of its own accord -- would imply that these dominoes are able to rearrange themselves back into upright positions and continue the process of falling down from your original inertia in an unending manner. This cannot be done.

Who can say that things have always existed? Have you always existed? How is this provable by any means, including logic?

As for creating a child, I do not believe Aquinas would say that. At least, I would not. I would say that two people combined parts of their genetic code and this union brought forth a human life. I would then use this fact to prove that life comes from life, not matter.

This is not a "goodness" proof as much as it is a study of our inferior quantity vs. God's superior quantity. We are able to posess aspects of God (wealth, fame, beauty, power, knowledge, and renunciation), but we can never approach God's level in respect to these qualities. We can share qualities with God and have varying levels of these qualities in respect to our fellow human beings, but because these qualities exist and because we have them, they must come from some source which posesses these qualities absolutely.

How can you argue that the fact of intelligence's existence is not indicative of a supreme intelligence?

However long this string is, it must have a definite origin because our universe is always subject to time. I hope you understand this concept by now.

So you "just happened"?

An example, please?

Please, I studied this subject (theoretical physics) for years on my own and for a couple in university. Supposedly, once the particles slowed down and cooled sufficiently they began to swirl and coalesce, forming stars. These stars created heavier elements and later exploded themselved, seeding the universe with these heavy elements. After a long time, these heavy elements began to form into planets orbiting stars, etc. etc. I know all about it. But what causes the particles to rotate in the first place? This requires a mover. Who is the mover?

The existence of God is not possible according to modern scientific theory, and many people are prepared to write of the possibility of God based only on this.

Hey, who am I to judge? Anything can be God, the only requirement is being the origin of everything.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

Frodo

I did read all of your posts. If you're repeating yourself in responding to what I've written it merely means that we're at an impasse.

I apparently don't understand what Aquinas is driving at with "efficient causes", because after reading that last bit I have no idea what he's saying or how it possibly proves the existence of god.

Who can say that god has always existed? How is THAT provable by any means, including logic?

Me assuming that time extends infinitely backwards is just as valid as you assuming that it doesn't and God was the start of it.

I don't have to - I'd merely argue that the supreme intelligence is not necessarily God - especially since intelligence is a subjective measurement anyway.

However long this string is, it need not have a definite origin since it extends infinitely far back. I hope you understand this concept by now.

More or less.

A few billion years ago, the first carbon-based life forms came into being. I wouldn't be able to say whether or not it's happened since then.

Assuming that this necessarily requires a "mover" is a fallacy. We don't know how every force in the universe works.

I think God and science can coexist, but not the traditional, created-the-world-in-seven-days God.

Every person who believes that God is a benevolent force somewhere in the universe that looks out for them - invariably - has some sort of personal experience convincing them that this is the case, or has been brought up that way by their parents and can't be convinced of anything else. This entire discussion is based on subjectivity and faith - for that reason, I don't see how Aquinas or anyone else can ever hope to "prove" that God exists.

JMOxLLELLO

you guys are talking out your asses, your acting like you were there when god created everything or when evolution started or when the big bang theory started...to be honest with you all, NO1 KNOWS and i doubt any1 will know how we were created or who created us...there has to be a begging but we dont know so stop acting like you do...you wernt there i wasnt there so drop it...we are humans and we evolved from monkeys millions of years ago...there ya go...