Take Back Our Country

[Tassman]

Again Carp, since I do believe that the Bible holds the oracles of God I would be foolish not to follow them. And yes, I am closed minded to a degree, but aren't we all? We all have biases and assumptions. And you, being human, are not immune.

You have not responded to my previous post. You may well believe that "the Bible holds the oracles of God" and that you'd "be foolish not to follow them", but other people have the same view of the bible and yest they have different interpretations of it. Wars have been fought over different interpretations. Thousands of Christian denominations have arisen as a consequence of differing interpretations of scripture.

This is the problem, I believe there are good rational arguments for theism, you don't. I mean we can go way back to Aquinas' Five Ways. Those argument are rational and logically consistent. You don't find them compelling, but that is more of a personal preference rather than a logical objection.

Those argument are indeed rational and logically consistent, but they're based upon non verified premises and hence cannot be shown to be true.

What is a rational basis for accepting those claims, for you? In other words, I do not see any logical argument against the possibility of miracles. I think it would come down to the idea that you haven't see one so you won't believe they are possible. But that is based on personal experience, it is not rational argument against the possibility.

Most people do not attribute unexplained events to "miracles". In a more gullible Age it was commonplace, but not today in the West. Most people look for rational explanations.

[Charles]

And you think a biblical quote it going to mean something...? Not to mention it does not answer the question...

Biblical quotes don't mean much these days. Even those who like to call themselves Christians ignore them as soon as they become inconvenient and stand in the way of Trump's policy.

[seer]

Those argument are indeed rational and logically consistent, but they're based upon non verified premises and hence cannot be shown to be true.

Here is the first of the Five Ways Tass - which of the premises can not be shown to be true?

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2.Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5.Therefore nothing can move itself.

6.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Conclusion: Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

[Charles]

Here is the first of the Five Ways Tass - which of the premises can not be shown to be true?

There are some interesting things to note:

I know you asked for us to show premises

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps if you revisit it you would find more value in them than you did - being that you are so open minded.

It's possible, but I strongly suspect my assessment will not have changed over-much. Still, if you want to discuss it, and we can achieve some degree of give-and-take in our discussion, I am willing.

Talk about self serving.

So it's self-serving to insist that a discussion by bilateral instead of unilateral?

Except you already agreed that you have biases and assumptions. Which will color what you see as evidence, good evidence or not. We are not Vulcans.

Of course. We always have to struggle against our biases. But you touch on a core difference between you and I, as far as I can tell. I am aware of my biases, and willing to entertain that they color my view and I will always have to struggle against them. You appear to have completely surrendered to yours. You are, after all, in touch with the divine. There is a sense of imperviousness to your beliefs. They cannot be wrong. Indeed, even entertaining the idea they might be is a betrayal of your god, or giving into the "temptation of the dark one," or "succumbing to sin." That comes through in many of your posts.

I would have to know each person individually. I know two men, both are degreed, one a Phd. Both are sober minded, solid Christians. They each relate that ONE time and one time only God spoke to them verbally. I have no reason to doubt them. Now if a man I didn't know did the same thing I would take it with a grain of salt. If that what you are asking?

Seer, it is not two men. I am asking you, if you were the man in each scenario, how would you know which scenario you were in? As the person in each scenario, can you tell the difference? If so, what would be your basis for knowing that you were in Scenario 1 and not Scenario 2, or vice versa?

And note, we can reverse the scenario and ask the same question of the atheist.

Scenario 1: God does not exist, and a man is convinced that god is a figment of the imagination of the human mind, driven by psychological need and cultural habit.
Scenario 2: God does exist, and a man is convinced that god is a figment of the imagination of the human mind, driven by psychological need and cultural habit.

How does a man know which scenario he is in? There is no fool-proof way of determining this. The best we can do is look at the available evidence, and do what we generally do for all other propositions: determine which we think is most probable and move in that direction. If the preponderance of evidence suggests "god exists," then that belief is adopted. If the preponderance of evidence suggests "god does not exist," then that belief is adopted. If the evidence is very closely balanced, one might adopt an "I cannot tell" position.

[carpedm9587]

Here is the first of the Five Ways Tass - which of the premises can not be shown to be true?

The problem with this way demonstrates itself in three ways.

1) Aquinas is using observations from within the Universe to speculate about the origins of the universe itself. Ergo he is taking premises that are true within one context, and attempting to apply them to a different context.

2) At step seven, he is introducing a premise that cannot be shown to be true. There is no conflict with traversing an infinity. This is a variation of Zeno's paradox.

3) Even if the argument can be shown to be both valid and sound (which it cannot), there is no need for this "first mover" to be "god" as defined by Christianity, and there is no need for this first mover to even be sentient. There is also no mechanism or history to show that the material can arise from the immaterial. Indeed, in all of our experiences, this only happens in the reverse direction. This last objection has the same problem as Aquinas' argument (i.e., applying a premise we know within the universe to the universe itself), but if it is workable for Aquinas, then it has to be accepted as workable for a refutation of Aquinas. If you reject it on the basis of my claim above (change of context), then you likewise have to reject the notion in Aquinas' "First Way."

There is another thing that comes to mind, but I have not worked it completely through. Aquinas had no access to the modern notion of energy and matter and the relationship between the two. Matter cannot move itself (I think that is true). But energy is motion. The ability for matter and energy to be transformed to one another factors in here. But, as I said, I have not worked it out completely. I have some work to do this morning and cannot devote a lot of brain cells to it. Perhaps one of my atheist peers will have an insight? If not, I will noodle on it over my soon-to-begin vacation.

[seer]

The problem with this way demonstrates itself in three ways.

1) Aquinas is using observations from within the Universe to speculate about the origins of the universe itself. Ergo he is taking premises that are true within one context, and attempting to apply them to a different context.

Of course, but you would have to the conclude that physical bodies can move themselves. That would be irrational unless you can show how that is possible.

2) At step seven, he is introducing a premise that cannot be shown to be true. There is no conflict with traversing an infinity. This is a variation of Zeno's paradox.

Infinite regression is impossible in actuality. Here is a thought experiment: Assume that there were an infinite number of past events or universes leading up to this one. You start a journey backward to visit each event or universe. I will give you an eternity for the task, could you ever visit each universe or event? No, for no matter how many events or universes you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead. Or you can go with Hilbert's paradox.

3) Even if the argument can be shown to be both valid and sound (which it cannot), there is no need for this "first mover" to be "god" as defined by Christianity, and there is no need for this first mover to even be sentient. There is also no mechanism or history to show that the material can arise from the immaterial. Indeed, in all of our experiences, this only happens in the reverse direction. This last objection has the same problem as Aquinas' argument (i.e., applying a premise we know within the universe to the universe itself), but if it is workable for Aquinas, then it has to be accepted as workable for a refutation of Aquinas. If you reject it on the basis of my claim above (change of context), then you likewise have to reject the notion in Aquinas' "First Way."

So you will have to demonstrate how an infinite regression of actual events is possible. How a non-sentient first mover begins to move other bodies with out a rational decision.

[MaxVel]

The problem we have with understanding Aquinas is that he uses technical terms which we understand differently in modern English. Thus, we easily misunderstand what he was actually arguing. An example is 'motion', which we usually understand to mean 'physical movement', whereas Aquinas means 'change'. If you want an interesting and accessible read on your vacation to understand Aquinas better, I can recommend Edward Feser's 'Aquinas'.

The problem with this way demonstrates itself in three ways.

1) Aquinas is using observations from within the Universe to speculate about the origins of the universe itself. Ergo he is taking premises that are true within one context, and attempting to apply them to a different context.

Is this were a valid objection, it would also apply to science. Aquinas is taking observations we can make about reality to understand the nature of reality. I see no problem.

2) At step seven, he is introducing a premise that cannot be shown to be true. There is no conflict with traversing an infinity. This is a variation of Zeno's paradox.

Aquinas is talking about a series ordered per se, i.e. one where the members of the series are moved from potentiality to actuality by the previous member in the series. Such a series, must, by it's nature, have a first mover. Note that Aquinas is NOT talking about a temporally ordered series. Think about the existence of contingent things - what causes them to exist here and now? What sustains them in existence?

3) Even if the argument can be shown to be both valid and sound (which it cannot), there is no need for this "first mover" to be "god" as defined by Christianity, and there is no need for this first mover to even be sentient. There is also no mechanism or history to show that the material can arise from the immaterial. Indeed, in all of our experiences, this only happens in the reverse direction. This last objection has the same problem as Aquinas' argument (i.e., applying a premise we know within the universe to the universe itself), but if it is workable for Aquinas, then it has to be accepted as workable for a refutation of Aquinas. If you reject it on the basis of my claim above (change of context), then you likewise have to reject the notion in Aquinas' "First Way."

In the First Way Aquinas is not concerned with proving the existence of the Christian God. He spends considerable time in the Summa and elsewhere showing why the First Mover has the other characteristics we attribute to God.

is[/I] motion. The ability for matter and energy to be transformed to one another factors in here. But, as I said, I have not worked it out completely. I have some work to do this morning and cannot devote a lot of brain cells to it. Perhaps one of my atheist peers will have an insight? If not, I will noodle on it over my soon-to-begin vacation.

Energy is not motion in the sense Aquinas means, I think.

[seer]

Seer, it is not two men. I am asking you, if you were the man in each scenario, how would you know which scenario you were in? As the person in each scenario, can you tell the difference? If so, what would be your basis for knowing that you were in Scenario 1 and not Scenario 2, or vice versa?

If the voice came with a miracle, I would trust that voice. Second, Sparko brought up a key point. If the voice was consistent with New Testament principles I would have little reason to doubt it. For instance, I knew a woman once who was convinced that God was telling her to leave her husband for another man - that is adultery and not from God.

[carpedm9587]

Of course, but you would have to the conclude that physical bodies can move themselves. That would be irrational unless you can show how that is possible.

I think you mean "cannot." And it is not "irrational." It is simply not observed in the universe within which we live, at least at our macro level. The concept of "perpetual motion" defies the laws operational within our universe, as far as we know. The concept itself is not irrational.

Infinite regression is impossible in actuality. Here is a thought experiment: Assume that there were an infinite number of past events or universes leading up to this one. You start a journey backward to visit each event or universe. I will give you an eternity for the task, could you ever visit each universe or event? No, for no matter how many events or universes you visited you would still have an infinite number ahead. Or you can go with Hilbert's paradox.

The problem is with the thought experiment itself. It appears to be a paradox, but it builds the falseness into the paradox with its assumptions. Consider a parallel case: Zeno's paradox about the runner. In order for the runner to finish a race, they must first pass the half-way point. From there, they must then pass the half way point again. The runner must pass an infinite number of "halfway points" before they can cross the finish line. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of points in a finite period of time, a runner can never finish a race. The argument LOOKS incredibly compelling, but we know that runners finish races every day, so something has to be wrong with the argument.

Here, you are proposing an infinite number of visits with an infinity to traverse them, so the problem is nowhere near as bad. The problem with the argument lies in the implicit assumption in the argument of a "beginning." If you have an infinite number of things to visit and an infinity to do it in, you will simply keep traversing infinitely with no contradiction. After all, we are dealing with infinity. The argument assumes the existence of a "beginner" and is essentially arguing that you can never get to it. There is no beginner - there is simply infinity.

So you will have to demonstrate how an infinite regression of actual events is possible. How a non-sentient first mover begins to move other bodies with out a rational decision.

Once you see the error in the infinite regress argument, the conclusion is fairly simple. But the First Way also has the other problems I pointed out.

[carpedm9587]

If the voice came with a miracle, I would trust that voice.

Second, Sparko brought up a key point. If the voice was consistent with New Testament principles I would have little reason to doubt it. For instance, I knew a woman once who was convinced that God was telling her to leave her husband for another man - that is adultery and not from God.

Seer, the men in the two scenarios are "seeing" exactly the same thing. The only difference is that for one it is an external reality, and for the second it is all in their mind. The question is, how could you tell the difference?

I'm also curious - how many miracles have you personally witnessed?

[carpedm9587]

The problem we have with understanding Aquinas is that he uses technical terms which we understand differently in modern English. Thus, we easily misunderstand what he was actually arguing. An example is 'motion', which we usually understand to mean 'physical movement', whereas Aquinas means 'change'. If you want an interesting and accessible read on your vacation to understand Aquinas better, I can recommend Edward Feser's 'Aquinas'.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Is this were a valid objection, it would also apply to science. Aquinas is taking observations we can make about reality to understand the nature of reality. I see no problem.

It DOES apply to science. Aquinas had no clue about the findings of modern science: he was working with his limited understanding of the mechanics functional within the universe. When you introduce those same mechanics to the universe as an entity, you are applying what are essentially "laws of physics" to a domain where we cannot know if those words/concepts even have meaning.

Aquinas is talking about a series ordered per se, i.e. one where the members of the series are moved from potentiality to actuality by the previous member in the series. Such a series, must, by it's nature, have a first mover. Note that Aquinas is NOT talking about a temporally ordered series. Think about the existence of contingent things - what causes them to exist here and now? What sustains them in existence?

Again, the claim that this is required is still an argument from infinite regression, and the argument against infinite regression fails because it assumes its own conclusion: that there has to be something that begins it and we can never arrive at this thing. But it is infinite...so there is no "first." Indeed, it is "turtles all the way down."

In the First Way Aquinas is not concerned with proving the existence of the Christian God. He spends considerable time in the Summa and elsewhere showing why the First Mover has the other characteristics we attribute to God.

Energy is not motion in the sense Aquinas means, I think.

And yet Aquinas is arguing from the physical universe he sees around him, so give me an example of something potential becoming actual that is not related to physics.

[MaxVel]

Again, the claim that this is required is still an argument from infinite regression, and the argument against infinite regression fails because it assumes its own conclusion: that there has to be something that begins it and we can never arrive at this thing. But it is infinite...so there is no "first." Indeed, it is "turtles all the way down."

You haven't grasped what Aquinas is talking about. There can't be ( by it's very nature) an infinite series of contingent things in existence here and now without something that is non-contingent, since such things cannot (by their nature) exist independently. Put another way, one might as well say that a brush can paint by itself, if it has a long enough handle.

Note that Aquinas is not thinking of a series in the sense of a temporally ordered sequence, nor of a linear series where each follows the previous one.


Anyway, Aquinas was a deep, careful and complex thinker, and I think people often too blithely dismiss him without really understanding his arguments. Get that book and enjoy it, it is interesting mind food!

[carpedm9587]

You haven't grasped what Aquinas is talking about. There can't be (by it's very nature) an infinite series of contingent things in existence here and now without something that is non-contingent, since such things cannot (by their nature) exist independently. Put another way, one might as well say that a brush can paint by itself, if it has a long enough handle.

Again, Max, the argument assumes its conclusion. We are talking about infinity here. The argument assumes "must be a starter." In an infinite series, there is no starter. The series progresses to infinity. Every contingent thing has a contingent thing before it. Every one. The brush analogy is simply not apt.

Note that Aquinas is not thinking of a series in the sense of a temporally ordered sequence, nor of a linear series where each follows the previous one.

The argument would fail in both cases.

Anyway, Aquinas was a deep, careful and complex thinker, and I think people often too blithely dismiss him without really understanding his arguments. Get that book and enjoy it, it is interesting mind food!

I have it on my list.

[MaxVel]

Again, Max, the argument assumes its conclusion. We are talking about infinity here. The argument assumes "must be a starter." In an infinite series, there is no starter. The series progresses to infinity. Every contingent thing has a contingent thing before it. Every one. The brush analogy is simply not apt.

Incorrect. Read up on what Aquinas is saying - series ordered per accidens versus series ordered per se. You're clearly wrong.