1 & 2 are horrible bad too.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.
fascinating it is!"knowing that natural beings could not have intelligence without it being granted to them it by God"
I've watch a few youtube videos about the nature of consciousness. Science still can't explain it. It's fascinating stuff.
.
yes they have, his five ways are still goodNo.
/thread
yes they have, his five ways are still good
nope,Good.....for nothing.
I think I’ll go ahead and respond to this (highlighted) now. Maybe I understood your argument, maybe I didn’t.
Why is intelligence the eventual outcome of evolution? Evolution is a mindless force. What evolved could have been just as easily unintelligent. I’m unaware of any scientific evidence that draws the conclusion you have here.
Evolution gave rise to intelligence. Therefore intelligence proves evolution.
- What is intelligence? Science is probably still in its infancy as to fully understanding intelligence. Is it hereditary or environmentally derived? AI is growing in possibility. But it requires an initial programming from an intelligence such as a homo sapien. With its arrival we may have to rethink our views on intelligence. Which brings me to my next question.
- Why is homo sapiens the top of the pyramid? Seeing as how evolution is mindless, you seem to be suggesting that it had a purpose. Us being the end result. That assumes evolution is finished. We don’t know that and thus to draw that conclusion is untenable. I’m going to go out on a limb here and rephrase your point.
I look forward to your responses.
The way Thomas’s “proofs” were taught me in theology class was that he was providing five ways a believer could explain his belief in God, that they were not intended to be proofs.
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).
I confess that it’s been ages since I’ve participated in discussions of this nature so pardon my missteps if I misunderstand your position. Over the course of those years I learned more about the arguments for and against the existence of a god from my atheist friends than from believers. Perhaps it’s because atheists are more open to questioning beliefs. I don’t mean to broad brush believers, however. I’ve learned a lot from many of them as well. Anyways, I’m straying afar off the path.
Reading your response here I can’t help thinking how much faith you have. Science has indeed brought us far in discovering the nature of many things. But it has its limitations. You admit that we don’t know the cause of the cause (or even if there is one - touching upon one of Aquinas arguments) for our existence but believe that science “will keep trying to find out”. Whereas that is true, it’s implication that they will discover the how is driven by faith. They may never come to a solid and undebatable answer. Perhaps, this might be one reason why there are scientists that are believers in a god. They (those that are believers) know they lack satisfactory answers for our existence in science. And some of those scientists are neither atheists nor theists. There’s another choice - agnosticism. They just don’t have enough information to say one way or another.
Now I know I probably didn’t touch upon the points you wish I had but allow me to warm up to it. One thing with regards to what you said to Tosca was about Aquinas fifth way argument. I wasn’t sure if what you spoke about accurately reflected his argument. Am I mistaken?
That is what one always claims when the proof falls.The way Thomas’s “proofs” were taught me in theology class was that he was providing five ways a believer could explain his belief in God, that they were not intended to be proofs.
Don’t understand. Either Thomas billed them as proofs or not. If he was acting from the point of view of a believer, surrounded by a culture of belief, I assume the explanation as taught me makes sense. He was not doing battle with non-believers, tho to be fair, perhaps doubters.That is what one always claims when the proof falls.It has been a very, very long time since I've deigned to read Aquinas, so I'm going from very old impressions, I admit. I'll confess, too, that I don't intend to make up for that neglect.
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
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.
Well, doesn’t your scientific evidence, more precise your specific use of it here, commit the same circular fallacy?
Your scientific evidence doesn’t necessarily remove God from the equation. To remove God from the equation as a cause of intelligence by means of evolution as the causefor intelligence requires the assumption no God/god was a cause for the evolutionary process. To assert intelligence “is the outcome of evolution” for a theistic evolutionist is a no brainer. God, as the father and cause of evolution, initiated an evolutionary process resulting in intelligence.
(Wikipedia)On 2 July 1951, Mary Reeser, a 67-year-old woman, was found burned to death in her house after her landlady realised that the house's doorknob was unusually warm. The landlady notified the police, and upon entering the home, they found Reeser's remains completely burned into ash, with only one leg remaining. The chair she was sitting in was also destroyed. During the investigation, detectives found that Reeser's temperature was around 3,500 °F (1,930 °C; 2,200 K), which puzzled the investigators, as almost everything else in the room in which Reeser was found remained intact.
“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.”
Why do atheists assume that an omniscient being has nothing to do with science? It's his system with the laws of physics. It's humanity that's ignorant.
Why do you think that all atheists think something that they don't? Science is not how the world works, it is a way for man to study the physical working of the universe. Science does not use omniscient beings in any explanations because science has observed none.
How would science recognize an omniscient being? If science doesn't explain how the world works, then what does?
Through observation. Science tries to explain how the physical world functions. It does so based on what can be observed and tested. How would anyone observe an omniscient being? How would it be tested? How do you test for omniscience? How do you show it exists other than as a concept?
I think I'm going to faint, we actually agree for once.
That's my whole point, how do you recognize an omnipotent being without being aware of what that means? Is it possible that the universe is part of one, big living-entity? There's no direct evidence that the universe is conscious, other than through us, but maybe we're not sophisticated enough yet to recognize it, at least not thru science.
To say, it's not possible is a claim to know everything. To say, you see no proof but honestly don't know is open-minded.
I think I'm going to faint, we actually agree for once.
That's my whole point, how do you recognize an omnipotent being without being aware of what that means? Is it possible that the universe is part of one, big living-entity? There's no direct evidence that the universe is conscious, other than through us, but maybe we're not sophisticated enough yet to recognize it, at least not thru science.
To say, it's not possible is a claim to know everything. To say, you see no proof but honestly don't know is open-minded.
Open-minded to science fiction, *YAWN*
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?