Thomas Aquinas said:The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Thomas Aquinas SSecond way is the "Argument from Efficient Causes". It is as follows
Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
Thomas Aquinas SSecond way is the "Argument from Efficient Causes". It is as follows
Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
I find it remarkable that he was able to disassociate cause and effect, much in the same way that our modern day big bang theory postulates that the universe was created from a singularity and that there was no existence prior to this. Cause and effect requires there to be history, and if time does not exist, there is no cause.Thomas Aquinas SSecond way is the "Argument from Efficient Causes". It is as follows
Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
I find it remarkable that he was able to disassociate cause and effect, much in the same way that our modern day big bang theory postulates that the universe was created from a singularity and that there was no existence prior to this. Cause and effect requires there to be history, and if time does not exist, there is no cause.
I don't get point 6 I admit, I'm still thinking about that one.
In point 7 he says "to which everyone gives the name of God." He isn't necessarily saying that it is a personal god to which we give human qualities.
It's not as simple as that. Since the big bang (theoretically...) created both time and space, there was no before.Actually, the modern big bang theorists know that the concept of the 'singularity' is because 'our math breaks down, and we don't understand what is happening'.
Cosmological arguments do not commit the fallacy of special pleading (well, not usually--none of Aquinas' arguments do). Special pleading is the fallacy of assigning, to a member of a set, a property which the other members don't have. God, if it exists, doesn't have the same properties as anything else.
This is not to say there aren't things wrong with cosmological arguments. But special pleading isn't one of them.
RAMOSS said:Sure, it has something that is different. "Out of all the things that are assumed to exist, God is assumed to be eternal". That is a quality of things that exist that is attributed to God, but not attributed to anything else.
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
I suppose the simple reply is that here's the argument in the OP:
To which you responded: special pleading. But nowhere in that argument is the claim that God is eternal.
That said, let's just consider general cases of possible special pleading. Of course, if there's a good reason to attribute an exception, that's also not special pleading. I might claim, for instance, that Barrack Obama is the only President who is African-American. His ethnicity makes him unique among the set of objects which are U.S. Presidents. But it's clearly not special pleading to make that claim. Similarly, if there's a reason to think there must be some special something, that's not special pleading either.
Assume arguendo that God exists: in such a case, God would clearly be exceptional in a number of ways. Calling it special pleading to posit such a being is sort-of like trying to use an arbitrary set of definitions to settle our ontological disputes. Obviously, one cannot simply foreclose on the possibility that God exists.
Where cosmological arguments go wrong, methinks, is in attributing too many properties to the "first cause." Quantum phenomena are pretty weird. Perhaps there is such a phenomenon which is capable of being the first cause. Aquinas is fine through to the end of his arguments, but then he wants to go farther and say that the thing people call God is the Christian god...and he doesn't give us any good reason to believe that.
Thank you for posting this, Ramoss.Thomas Aquinas SSecond way is the "Argument from Efficient Causes". It is as follows
Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
This one is yet another case of special pleading. He is rejecting the 'infinite chain' of causation, yet, he fails to show that why a 'god' would be different , and where this God comes from to begin with. IT also is assuming there that there is only one 'uncaused cause'. It then does a logical leap , and labels this 'uncaused cause' to be God. It makes a lot of unprovable assumptions, .. such as 'there is only one uncaused cause' , and begging the question. As such, it is unconvincing, and not reliable.
If nothing exists prior to itself, then god is not eternal. And maybe he doesn't even exist outside of time.
If God cannot be efficient, then he cannot be omnipotent and omnipresent.
In short the biggest flaw is that these rules must not aply to god. If they were to be applied to god as equally and fairly as they are to humans, then there goes Christianity.
I find it remarkable that he was able to disassociate cause and effect, much in the same way that our modern day big bang theory postulates that the universe was created from a singularity and that there was no existence prior to this. Cause and effect requires there to be history, and if time does not exist, there is no cause.
I don't get point 6 I admit, I'm still thinking about that one.
In point 7 he says "to which everyone gives the name of God." He isn't necessarily saying that it is a personal god to which we give human qualities.
Actually, the modern big bang theorists know that the concept of the 'singularity' is because 'our math breaks down, and we don't understand what is happening'.
It's not as simple as that. Since the big bang (theoretically...) created both time and space, there was no before.
But this depends on which theorist you read up on. Even scientists argue about the interpretation of the math, and what it means to us. "Metaphysics".
If nothing exists prior to itself, then god is not eternal. And maybe he doesn't even exist outside of time.
If God cannot be efficient, then he cannot be omnipotent and omnipresent.
In short the biggest flaw is that these rules must not aply to god. If they were to be applied to god as equally and fairly as they are to humans, then there goes Christianity.
Cosmological arguments do not commit the fallacy of special pleading (well, not usually--none of Aquinas' arguments do). Special pleading is the fallacy of assigning, to a member of a set, a property which the other members don't have. God, if it exists, doesn't have the same properties as anything else.
This is not to say there aren't things wrong with cosmological arguments. But special pleading isn't one of them.
If nothing exists prior to itself, then god is not eternal. And maybe he doesn't even exist outside of time.
If God cannot be efficient, then he cannot be omnipotent and omnipresent.
In short the biggest flaw is that these rules must not aply to god. If they were to be applied to god as equally and fairly as they are to humans, then there goes Christianity.
Cosmological arguments do not commit the fallacy of special pleading (well, not usually--none of Aquinas' arguments do). Special pleading is the fallacy of assigning, to a member of a set, a property which the other members don't have. God, if it exists, doesn't have the same properties as anything else.
This is not to say there aren't things wrong with cosmological arguments. But special pleading isn't one of them.
IN that case, where did the first efficient cause come from? According to the axioms, nothing os an efficient cause of itself. The so called 'first cause' did not have an efficient cause. But to exist at all.. it would need a cause. So, either it is an uncausd cause, or it is eternal.
If there is one uncaused cause, why can't there be many uncaused causes?
If there is one thing that is eternal, why can't there be multiple thing that are eternal?
I thought you were going to say these rules must be applied consistently to constitute logical sensible speculative philosophy.
But you came up with another exception as a proof of God -- that these rules do not apply to God.
So yours is a 6th or 7th proof of God.
I normally give Rene Descartes credit with the 6th proof -- creation has been good to me, so someone has been good to me, and that someone must be God.
Sorry to offend people, but i'm not very big on logic.
I'm just trying to be fair and even handed.
But if you've been following my posts you'd know that at least for me, mere argumentation, no matter how eloquent or verbose, is a fact or have real substance or meaning.
That would be a fallacy of argument from ignorance. It fails.
How does saying 'we don't know that this means' the fallacy of an argument from ignorance'. I am sorry, but you don't understand that fallacy.
How does saying 'we don't know that this means' the fallacy of an argument from ignorance'. I am sorry, but you don't understand that fallacy.
Ad hominem.
Please try again.
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?