- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,219
- Reaction score
- 15,258
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Thomas Aquinas was a Christian “apologist” who spent much of his life trying to reconcile faith with reason. Below is a quick rehash of his arguments for God. As I have said before , they are both complex and yet quite simplistic at the same time. Complex because theologians and others have spent literally centuries trying to resolve them. Simplistic because when properly parsed they become, for the most part, circular reasoning that a smart child could unravel.
So the question is: have they stood the rest of time:
“Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God could be proven in five ways, mainly by: 1) observing movement in the world as proof of God, the "Immovable Mover"; 2) observing cause and effect and identifying God as the cause of everything; 3) concluding that the impermanent nature of beings proves the existence of a necessary being, God, who originates only from within himself; 4) noticing varying levels of human perfection and determining that a supreme, perfect being must therefore exist; and 5) knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God. Subsequent to defending people's ability to naturally perceive proof of God, Thomas also tackled the challenge of protecting God's image as an all-powerful being.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas - Life, Philosophy & Theology
Italian Dominican theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential medieval thinkers of Scholasticism and the father of the Thomistic school of theology.www.biography.com
I assume you meant “test of time”. I can’t, however, assume what you meant by that. Do you agree with Aquinas’ five arguments? 1&2 seem sound. 3-5 a bit more challenging.Thomas Aquinas was a Christian “apologist” who spent much of his life trying to reconcile faith with reason. Below is a quick rehash of his arguments for God. As I have said before , they are both complex and yet quite simplistic at the same time. Complex because theologians and others have spent literally centuries trying to resolve them. Simplistic because when properly parsed they become, for the most part, circular reasoning that a smart child could unravel.
So the question is: have they stood the rest of time:
“Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that the existence of God could be proven in five ways, mainly by: 1) observing movement in the world as proof of God, the "Immovable Mover"; 2) observing cause and effect and identifying God as the cause of everything; 3) concluding that the impermanent nature of beings proves the existence of a necessary being, God, who originates only from within himself; 4) noticing varying levels of human perfection and determining that a supreme, perfect being must therefore exist; and 5) knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God. Subsequent to defending people's ability to naturally perceive proof of God, Thomas also tackled the challenge of protecting God's image as an all-powerful being.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas - Life, Philosophy & Theology
Italian Dominican theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas was one of the most influential medieval thinkers of Scholasticism and the father of the Thomistic school of theology.www.biography.com
Part 1.
I suppose a part 2 is in the offing. Okay, before we get to part 2 - we need some clarification here.
See that large fonted statement above?
Can you explain how something becomes, "circular reasoning?" Give an example.
Re: Thomas Aquinas, I don't know much about him. I have to google.
I assume you meant “test of time”. I can’t, however, assume what you meant by that. Do you agree with Aquinas’ five arguments? 1&2 seem sound. 3-5 a bit more challenging.
I’d like to address your post to Tosca but I’ll let her have first dibs on it. I’ll address the point you made to me and see where it might lead.Thank you for that correction, Of course, “test” is the correct word. I am not always good in “proofing” my inputs.
And no, as an atheist, I do not agree with any of them. See my previous post explaining to Tosca how they are basically circular arguments.
Here’s they key: Let’s take the “cause of everything” argument. Here’s the proper answer: WE DON’T KNOW what the basic cause of everything is, but we keep searching, primarily through science. We don’t just throw up our hands and say “God did it!” That’s what primitive humans did. Hopefully we have moved beyond that.
I’d like to address your post to Tosca but I’ll let her have first dibs on it. I’ll address the point you made to me and see where it might lead.
When we speak of “cause of everything” we’re primarily speaking of origins. There are scientific explanations for the origins of what we observe. But proof? No. In place of postulating a god, science offers instead a Big Bang theory. The cause of our existence therefore is due to that with evolution tossed into the mix. Instead of calling it the Big Bang why not just call it god? We don’t know, scientifically, if there was another cause for the Big Bang.
Rosea who?Rosea won't be in for another day or so. Go for it.
Rosea won't be in for another day or so. Go for it.
I’d like to address your post to Tosca but I’ll let her have first dibs on it. I’ll address the point you made to me and see where it might lead.
When we speak of “cause of everything” we’re primarily speaking of origins. There are scientific explanations for the origins of what we observe. But proof? No. In place of postulating a god, science offers instead a Big Bang theory. The cause of our existence therefore is due to that with evolution tossed into the mix. Instead of calling it the Big Bang why not just call it god? We don’t know, scientifically, if there was another cause for the Big Bang.
Are y'all friends?Oops....I meant Tosca.
I'll butt in here to agree that if you want to call the laws of physics "God" that's okay with me.I’d like to address your post to Tosca but I’ll let her have first dibs on it. I’ll address the point you made to me and see where it might lead.
When we speak of “cause of everything” we’re primarily speaking of origins. There are scientific explanations for the origins of what we observe. But proof? No. In place of postulating a god, science offers instead a Big Bang theory. The cause of our existence therefore is due to that with evolution tossed into the mix. Instead of calling it the Big Bang why not just call it god? We don’t know, scientifically, if there was another cause for the Big Bang.
As a native and former Kansas Citian, I'm guessing it's a bit of a lonely experience to be a rationalist in Springfield.For an atheist, it's we don't know, period, end of story, except that science will keep tryng to find out. If you would like to speculate beyond that as to a God, that is your perfect right, but it is then outside of the realm of science.
I'll butt in here to agree that if you want to call the laws of physics "God" that's okay with me.
Lol. That’s ok. I still think I’ll give her first shot at your response. I might learn something.Oops....I meant Tosca.
I’d like to address your post to Tosca but I’ll let her have first dibs on it. I’ll address the point you made to me and see where it might lead.
When we speak of “cause of everything” we’re primarily speaking of origins. There are scientific explanations for the origins of what we observe. But proof? No. In place of postulating a god, science offers instead a Big Bang theory. The cause of our existence therefore is due to that with evolution tossed into the mix. Instead of calling it the Big Bang why not just call it god? We don’t know, scientifically, if there was another cause for the Big Bang.
Thank you for the opportunity. I may regret it.Go ahead Overitall. I'm not familiar with Thomas Aquinas. I'll kinda sit this one out.
Sure, as long as the definition of the word "god" is either Science but more specifically Physics (as the explanation for the existence of the universe, therefore everything that follows from that).Thanks for your stamp of approval. Now if you can just convince scientists to accept it we can say scientists have proven the existence of god.
I appreciate your response. I didn’t see it earlier and was working on responding to your answer to Tosca (which I’ll hold off on for now).For an atheist, it's we don't know, period, end of story, except that science will keep tryng to find out. If you would like to speculate beyond that as to a God, that is your perfect right, but it is then outside of the realm of science.
I think I’ll go ahead and respond to this (highlighted) now. Maybe I understood your argument, maybe I didn’t.Well, let’s take #5 as an example: knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them by God.
This is basically a nice little tautology which, when examined, makes the following two statements: God granted intelligence to humans; and therefore intelligence in humans proves that there is a God.
It’s circular in that it depends only on itself for “proof” rather than on any outside evidence. Thomas Aquinas and subsequent apologists have, of course, spent a lot of time and effort and words in expanding the explanation, but it all comes down to the basic circular argument in the end.
All of the other points are basically the same in structure, two statements saying the same in reverse.
What science has now shown is that intelligence is the eventual outcome of evolution in the “top of the pyramid” fauna at this point, namely Homo sapiens.
Me too. Hence my "former"hood. I have a sis still lives there.As a native and former Kansas Citian, I'm guessing it's a bit of a lonely experience to be a rationalist in Springfield.
I've often used the formulation that science provides the "how" and theology the "Why". They are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they mutually reinforcing.I'll butt in here to agree that if you want to call the laws of physics "God" that's okay with me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?