• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thomas Aquinas Part 1

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Philosophers often perform extreme feats of mental gymnastics, to ramble on, without ever reaching a definite conclusion. If it takes you too long to get to a point, you lose people's attention and interest. Especially if you keep using convoluted made-up terms to explain simple concepts. It's merely an act of egoism. The greatest thinkers are succinct and clear about their reasoning.

Do you know what they call a scientist without an imagination? An idiotic computer. :LOL:
Science takes learning, work, and discipline. It is not about sitting around imagining things.
 

grip

☚ Not Sure ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
24,608
Reaction score
9,329
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You have missed my point. Making up the concept of an omniscient being does not mean one is even possible. Some things are just make believe.
Again, I agree. If someone says there are real Klingons, I might not believe that. Though, I still leave room for the possibility. I don't believe in witches, vampires, werewolves, monsters, ghouls, etc but I won't say without a doubt, they couldn't exist.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Again, I agree. If someone says there are real Klingons, I might not believe that. Though, I still leave room for the possibility. I don't believe in witches, vampires, werewolves, monsters, ghouls, etc but I won't say without a doubt, they couldn't exist.
There is no reason to be open to something just because someone can make it up. Human imagination is not evidence of imaginary things.
 

grip

☚ Not Sure ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
24,608
Reaction score
9,329
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Science takes learning, work, and discipline. It is not about sitting around imagining things.
Science, I believe, takes education, work, discipline, AND imagination. Einstein was digging a ditch, trying to escape thinking about a math equation when he started to daydream and imagine flying thru space on a broomstick. That's when he came up with space curvature. You have to often go there in the mind first before a new reality can be discovered.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Science, I believe, takes education, work, discipline, AND imagination. Einstein was digging a ditch, trying to escape thinking about a math equation when he started to daydream and imagine flying thru space on a broomstick. That's when he came up with space curvature. You have to often go there in the mind first before a new reality can be discovered.
Without the basics, imagination means nothing.
 

grip

☚ Not Sure ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
24,608
Reaction score
9,329
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Without the basics, imagination means nothing.
Totally agree. Without the foundation of fundamental knowledge, imagination is useless.
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
5,694
Reaction score
1,497
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Philosophers often perform extreme feats of mental gymnastics, to ramble on, without ever reaching a definite conclusion. If it takes you too long to get to a point, you lose people's attention and interest. Especially if you keep using convoluted made-up terms to explain simple concepts. It's merely an act of egoism. The greatest thinkers are succinct and clear about their reasoning.

Do you know what they call a scientist without an imagination? An idiotic computer. :LOL:
So a "philosopher" can make any nutty claim and we have to accept it as serious? I did not know that!
But at least you are admitting to convoluted made-up terms, so that's a start.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Evolution gave rise to intelligence. Therefore intelligence proves evolution.

I look forward to your responses.

I've been looking for Watsup's response to your posts................... can't find them.

Looks like he ran away from you! :LOL:
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So a "philosopher" can make any nutty claim and we have to accept it as serious? I did not know that!
But at least you are admitting to convoluted made-up terms, so that's a start.


Are you gonna answer Overitall's posts........or, he got you stumped? :)
Posts #22, and #23.



As the author of this thread and OP, it's incumbent upon you to respond, ESPECIALLY to arguments that directly challenge your OP or claim,
you know.
 
Last edited:

Fletch

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
36,530
Reaction score
16,557
Location
Mentor Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.”

Seeing as how Aquinas has been dead for over 700 years and, as your OP demonstrates, we are still discussing his writings, Id say they have 'stood the test of time.'
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So a "philosopher" can make any nutty claim and we have to accept it as serious? I did not know that!
But at least you are admitting to convoluted made-up terms, so that's a start.

Which brings us right back to Overitall's post:


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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
Evolution gave rise to intelligence. Therefore intelligence proves evolution.

I look forward to your responses.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,667
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seeing as how Aquinas has been dead for over 700 years and, as your OP demonstrates, we are still discussing his writings, Id say they have 'stood the test of time.'
They have not. Have Galen's four humours theory of health 'stood the test of time'?
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
Well.....kinda like you're the one going circular on me.

You say that God is beyond the realm of science - which is is true - however, you keep concluding that Thomas Aquinas arguments
come down to nothing!

You can't conclude that it comes down to nothing, especially when the National Academy of Sciences had put the POSSIBILITY of creation
on the table, by singling out Theistic Evolution.



You, yourself, don't have any evidence to support your claim! If science isn't making any conclusive statement - why do you?



"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that
God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."





Science is not driven by faith at all. Scientists know what they know, and they know what they don’t know. Neither requires faith as normally understood as referencing belief in God, which is faith based on NO objective, reality-based evidence, as opposed to science which makes no claims unless there is some sort of evidence to back them up, Totally different.
There may indeed be a definition of faith that may apply to science, but keep in mind that definitions are normally quite precise, and to compare a definition of faith as applies to belief in God to one that may apply to science is called conflation, i.e,, mixing definitions to confuse rather than to gain understanding.

Your argument is what is driven by faith! You've got nothing to support your claim, and you're bucking at science!


You try to dismiss this statement from the NAS, but the fact that Theistic Evolution was singled out and even mentioned at all,
indeed means something.
That it was published in a booklet titled: "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"
which is still being used today, says a lot.

That would lend some support to Thomas Aquinas, right? His philosophy hasn't come down to nothing!



Here's what I want to know from you:


If science has not ruled out the possibility of God creation -
on what authority do you base your conclusion that it's out?
 
Last edited:

Overitall

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
8,151
Reaction score
2,210
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I've been looking for Watsup's response to your posts................... can't find them.

Looks like he ran away from you! :LOL:
Not at all. I believe he responded twice. Post #33 and 35. I was considering a counter response to them but got sidetracked. The discussion has brought others on board and I’m finding their comments interesting. Their points of view might only reflect my own.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well.....kinda like you're the one going circular on me.

You say that God is beyond the realm of science - which is is true - however, you keep concluding that Thomas Aquinas arguments
come down to nothing!

You can't conclude that it comes down to nothing, especially when the National Academy of Sciences had put the POSSIBILITY of creation
on the table, by singling out Theistic Evolution.



You, yourself, don't have any evidence to support your claim! If science isn't making any conclusive statement - why do you?













Your argument is what is driven by faith! You've got nothing to support your claim, and you're bucking at science!


You try to dismiss this statement from the NAS, but the fact that Theistic Evolution was singled out and even mentioned at all,
indeed means something.
That it was published in a booklet titled: "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"
which is still being used today, says a lot.

That would lend some support to Thomas Aquinas, right? His philosophy hasn't come down to nothing!



Here's what I want to know from you:


If science has not ruled out the possibility of God creation -
on what authority do you base your conclusion that it's out?
Science does not have the ability to say anything in regard to god. There are no scientific studies that deal with the subject of god. Science can only examine that for which there is physical evidence. Science has to date found no physical evidence of gods so it says nothing about the possibility of gods.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Science does not have the ability to say anything in regard to god. There are no scientific studies that deal with the subject of god. Science can only examine that for which there is physical evidence.
:rolleyes:

You say that God is beyond the realm of science - which is true



Science has to date found no physical evidence of gods so it says nothing about the possibility of gods.
Nevertheless, the POSSIBILITY of a God-created universe is not off the table! That means the POSSIBILITY exists!


Read this quoted message from the NAS again.


"..... many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."





If you don't want to accept it as it is written by the NAS, that's up to you. Take it, or leave it.
In which case, your view becomes faith-based.
 
Last edited:

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
50,017
Reaction score
17,968
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
On the other hand, it doesn't add God to the equation either. In fact, all it does is show much explanation does not NEED God.
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
:rolleyes:

You say that God is beyond the realm of science - which is true





Nevertheless, the POSSIBILITY of a God-created universe is not off the table! That means the POSSIBILITY exists!


Read this quoted message from the NAS again.


"..... many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."





If you don't want to accept it as it is written by the NAS, that's up to you. Take it, or leave it.
In which case, your view becomes faith-based.
The view written by NAS has absolutely nothing to do with a scientific view of the possibility of gods. Nothing at all. It is an opinion of a group who happens to be involved in scientific research. It is not based in any way on science. Science does not back the view in any way.
 

grip

☚ Not Sure ☛
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
24,608
Reaction score
9,329
Location
Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
So a "philosopher" can make any nutty claim and we have to accept it as serious? I did not know that!
But at least you are admitting to convoluted made-up terms, so that's a start.
Actually, I'm saying the opposite that philosophers don't always make sensible claims. You may not like my theories or even remotely believe in them but at least they're not that longwinded.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The view written by NAS has absolutely nothing to do with a scientific view of the possibility of gods. Nothing at all. It is an opinion of a group who happens to be involved in scientific research. It is not based in any way on science. Science does not back the view in any way.
It's because you don't understand what you read. 🤷
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's because you don't understand what you read. 🤷
No, it is because you read into things because of your bias. You have not cited any scientific study that said god was possible.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,901
Reaction score
8,667
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The imbalance of humors, or dyscrasia, was thought to be the direct cause of all diseases. Health was associated with a balance of humors, or eucrasia. The qualities of the humors, in turn, influenced the nature of the diseases they caused. Yellow bile caused warm diseases and phlegm caused cold diseases. In On the Temperaments, Galen further emphasized the importance of the qualities. An ideal temperament involved a balanced mixture of the four qualities. Galen identified four temperaments in which one of the qualities, warm, cold, moist or dry, predominated and four more in which a combination of two, warm and moist, warm and dry, cold and dry or cold and moist, dominated. These last four, named for the humors with which they were associated—that is, sanguine, choleric, melancholic and phlegmatic, eventually became better known than the others. While the term temperament came to refer just to psychological dispositions, Galen used it to refer to bodily dispositions, which determined a person's susceptibility to particular diseases as well as behavioral and emotional inclinations.


All complete nonsense that has not stood the test of time, just like Aquinas's 'proof of god has not stood the test of time.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
21,509
Reaction score
2,782
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No, it is because you read into things because of your bias. You have not cited any scientific study that said god was possible.

It's because you don't understand. 🤷
 

devildavid

Phlegmatic
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
16,901
Reaction score
3,401
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's because you don't understand. 🤷
No, it is because you are reading into something beyond what it is saying due to your bias. You are seeing what you want to see and making more of the statement than what it is.
 
Top Bottom