• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Thomas Aquinisa Second way Argument from Efficence causes


Pretentiousness and verbosity. Fails.

Please try again.
 
Riveroaks said:
Pretentiousness and verbosity. Fails.

Please try again.
Click to expand...

Why should I. It was not verbose, It was not pretentious. Nor, did it fail. It was straight, to the point,and precise.
 

Thanks for the kind words but i was pointing out a flaw. I don't see how pointing out a flaw is a real proof of the existence of God.

Just to be clear, when i am talking about proof of God, for me it will be nothing short of Indiana Jones or Buffy The Vampire Slayer. That's how define my proof.

IT has to be concise,specific, clear, and not able to be explained as something science.

Then id' want a very long talk with God to see why he would deserve my devotion, and to see whether or not the Bible is true or not, in part or in its entirety.

Because if God is truly real, and everything in the Bible about is absolutely true, then I would much rather go to jail as i personally consider that God of the Bible a very monstrous being.
 

Well now you are talking about religion.

The topic here is at the current moment philosophy.

The philosophical God is different from the various Religious God(s).

Remember, in Modern Philosophy, you need to start with only yourself together with skepticism, like Descartes did.

Then you build on your thoughts from there.

Cogito Ergo Sum is the starting point for everything else as well.

Once philosophy has created or discovered it's own God then you can compare this God with the various God(s) of the Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Muslim, Hindu, etc.

After cogito ergo sum, modern philosophy tries to answer --

1 - is a god possible?

2 - is a god necessary?

3 - is a god comprehendible?

4 - can we deduct logically towards a god?

5 - can we infer Empirically towards a god?

6 - can we prove indirectly towards a god?
 

Except the OP is about Thomas Aquinas, and his argument about the existence of God.

which is religion.

Hmmm...

you know what?

If we apply Schrodinger's cat to God....

That means God disappears when we don't think about him.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Except the OP is about Thomas Aquinas, and his argument about the existence of God.

which is religion.

Hmmm...

you know what?

If we apply Schrodinger's cat to God....

That means God disappears when we don't think about him.
Click to expand...

I'll let Ramoss explain that better for you -- not religion but philosophy.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Religion is always a philosophy but not all philosophy is always a religion.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bertrand Russell the late British philosopher and mathematician divided knowledge into 3 separate divisions:

Science / philosophy / religion.

He stated that they do not and should not overlap.

If you read his book "History Of Western Philosophy" he explains why.
 
Riveroaks said:
Well, I am waiting for you to reply with something polite and logical. NO B/S.
Click to expand...

Pardon, but I was quite polite, and nothing I said was 'BS'. Would you please actually address what I did say , instead of a one or two word hand wave.
 
RAMOSS said:
Pardon, but I was quite polite, and nothing I said was 'BS'. Would you please actually address what I did say , instead of a one or two word hand wave.
Click to expand...

I dismissed all 3 of your previous responses for reasons of ad hominem, verbosity, and self aggrandizement.

If you would therefore like to try again, without the ad homs, without the verbosity, and without the self aggrandizement, I would then be happy to considered your points in rebuttal. Begin ... .
 
Riveroaks said:
I'll let Ramoss explain that better for you -- not religion but philosophy.
Click to expand...

In the meantime Ramoss why don't you answer AH's questions about religion vs philosophy to him.

He sounds like he is new to this philosophy thing and therefore he still does not know the different between the "philosophy God" versus the religious God(s) of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestants, Hindus, Islam, Shinto, etc.
 
I am not new to this philosophy thang.


I have read some things about Thomas Aquinas and the logic counter arguments to his assertions.

I'm just not very verbose or eloquent and prefer to keep things simple.

It is the simplest of things in life that are actually the best. Sometimes philosophy is just to trap and trick people for the laughs or for their own self gratification to feel superior to other people.

Also, the thing about Aquinas is, his assertions are not Biblical.

Compare his claims to the Bible, and I believe you'll see what i mean.

He is actually treating the bible as a secondary source rather than a primary source.
 

You're still confusing philosophy with religion.

And you are still confusing the Christian religious God with the philosophy God.
 

Yes, that is correct. Most cosmological arguments are actually reductio arguments; the basic structure of cosmological arguments is this:

1. Start with two premises which are apparently true of everything in the universe.

2. Show that if both are true they create a contradiction.

3. Appeal to an intuition that it would be better to suppose God exists than to abandon either premise.

In this case (i.e. with Aquinas' second way), the two premises are:

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Things have efficient causes (efficient causes are defined such that if a thing doesn't have one, it doesn't exist).

From these two premises (which are 1, 2, and 4 in the argument), Aquinas reasons to 7, which is stated in a specific way: it is necessary to admit a first cause.

So, unless there is a flaw in the reasoning, we have four options:

1. Abandon the law of non-contradiction.

2. Abandon the proposition that nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Abandon the proposition that things have efficient causes as defined.

4. Admit there must be at least one thing that is an exception--that is, one thing for which at least one of the two premises is untrue, and which has the power to cause everything else.

Of course, there could be a flaw in the reasoning. I don't think there is. I think the flaw comes after the argument is done, when Aquinas and others try to evaluate the import of the conclusion, which just doesn't seem to be quite what is usually supposed.

RAMOSS said:
If there is one uncaused cause, why can't there be many uncaused causes?
Click to expand...

Of course there could be. This is one reason among many I say the import isn't what is commonly supposed. That is to say that while I think cosmological arguments succeed, they don't succeed in what their authors suppose they do.

Interesting bit of trivia: this may have been one of the reasons William of Ockham proposed his razor: once you know there needs to be an exception, don't multiply them unecessarily.

RAMOSS said:
If there is one thing that is eternal, why can't there be multiple thing that are eternal?
Click to expand...

Again, of course there could be. Even things that seem to be temporary might be eternal.
 

Except i was point out a flaw, not a proof.

flaws are not proof.

Sorry.
 
Riveroaks said:
You're still confusing philosophy with religion.

And you are still confusing the Christian religious God with the philosophy God.
Click to expand...

Except for one thing.

The philosophical God is not Biblical.

Although there is some philosophy in the Bible.

Only the Bible is God's word and law, so the Christians claim.

And everything else, is just a means of argumentation to dazzle the common people who are not knowledgeable of tricks and traps of philosophy.
 

You are correct.
 
Riveroaks said:
You are correct.
Click to expand...

Hey now.

This is the internet.

you're not supposed to agree with me.

you're supposed to be offended, and start reall getting argumentative with me.

harumph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…