See the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?
Announcement
Collapse
How Do We Know that God Exists?
Collapse
X
-
Um, unless you are arguing for a steady state universe, Number Three inherently applies to material reality as we know it (arguably, so do the rest but I'd argue Five as the second strongest).
I suspect - not a philosopher and don't play on on TV - the existence of God is where we should wind up following Plato's forms to their logical conclusion but I would not argue it as I'm not well enough read in the two."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostUm, unless you are arguing for a steady state universe, Number Three inherently applies to material reality as we know it (arguably, so do the rest but I'd argue Five as the second strongest).
I suspect - not a philosopher and don't play on on TV - the existence of God is where we should wind up following Plato's forms to their logical conclusion but I would not argue it as I'm not well enough read in the two.
Unlike some modern Thomists, Thomas Aquinas didn't seem to divide his physics and metaphysics in a way that made them into non-overlapping magisteria.
*Those like Edward Feser, and our own Nick Peters. I also read one a while back claiming that even if there was no such thing as motion Thomas would still be right.
An example of this from Edward Feser's blog.
"Moreover, the philosophy of nature, as modern Scholastics have understood it, tells us what the natural world must be like whatever the specific laws of physics, chemistry, etc. turn out to be. And the Scholastic position is that the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the principle of causality, and other fundamental elements of the Aristotelian conception of nature are among the preconditions of any possible material world susceptible of scientific study.
That is why no findings of empirical science can undermine the claims of metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. It is also why no findings of empirical science can undermine the Aristotelian-Thomistic arguments for the existence of God, for these are grounded in premises drawn, not from natural science, but from metaphysics and the philosophy of nature. "
**Quantum mechanics, gravity, and light going through a vacuum are falsifications of these.
Comment
-
Perhaps you could post them for non-Thomists?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostSee the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?
This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 07:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by psstein View PostSee the title, but this is a question that I've been thinking about recently. More specifically, while Aquinas' Five Ways are very strong arguments, what necessarily makes them apply to reality?Originally posted by Scrawly View PostWe don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.
This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Remonstrant View PostDogmatic statements in support of agnosticism(?).
No. Statements that support the limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility.
Are you truly that certain about the uncertainty of the existence of God?
These are self-refuting assertions, Scrawly.Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 07:53 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostWe don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.
This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.Originally posted by The Remonstrant View PostDogmatic statements in support of agnosticism(?).Originally posted by Scrawly View PostNo. Statements that support the limitations and realities of human reasoning and fallibility.
Originally posted by The Remonstrant View PostAre you truly that certain about the uncertainty of the existence of God?Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI am certain about the limitations of our beliefs when attempting to produce rational certainty.
Originally posted by The Remonstrant View PostThese are self-refuting assertions, Scrawly.Originally posted by Scrawly View PostI think you are refuting a straw man.
Finally, I will simply say that I believe a discussion of this nature belongs on another forum (though the moderators may disagree). I doubt that I will carry on much longer, in any event.Last edited by The Remonstrant; 12-03-2017, 08:26 PM.For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostWe don't know God exists. When someone says they know God exists, what they really mean is "I strongly believe God exists". Conviction and proof are two different things. Of course we can claim evidence for our beliefs, but the evidence still falls significantly short of furnishing any sort of rational certainty.
This is why we as humans all doubt at times, and this is why we continue to debate worldviews, evidences, and interpretations because at the end of the day, no one can prove with certainty that their answers to "ultimate questions" are the correct ones.
Comment
-
I am certain that we have doubts in regards to claims that do not have incontrovertible proof, yes. Our interpretations of data and our experiences as fallible human beings is limited and prone to error, including mine, yes.
Yes. We as Christian's cannot provide rational, incontrovertible proof of God's existence to an "outsider".
You are certain of the limitations of human knowledge.
Presumably you know with precision where human knowledge begins and ends, or are you merely guessing?
[I do not believe so. You are making faith-claims as to what human beings can and cannot know
and more or less treating the key tenet to your agnostic belief system of incertitude as indubitable fact.
Do you not see the slightest hint of possible contradiction or irony here?
Finally, I will simply say that I believe a discussion of this nature belongs on another forum (though the moderators may disagree). I doubt that I will carry on much longer, in any event.Last edited by Scrawly; 12-03-2017, 09:33 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Scrawly View PostYes. We as Christian's [sic] cannot provide rational, incontrovertible proof of God's existence to an "outsider[.]"For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>
Comment
-
I'm not arguing that we as Christian's ought to attempt to prove God's existence. I am stating that we cannot prove the existence of God to anyone, including ourselves. What separates us as Christian's from the unbelieving world is that unbeliever's reject the gospel and Christian's accept the gospel, based on faith, not proof. As Christian's, our interpretation of why we accept the gospel is partly due to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, another article of faith, not proof. Naturally, therefore, we will at times doubt (some frequently, others less so) the existence of God (or our presuppositions), elements of the gospel, parts of the bible, etc. because many of these things fall into the category of "belief" and not "proof" -- because we lack rational certainty -- but that doesn't mean we cannot have faith. Some of us do, by the grace of God, I believe.
Comment
-
For some reason, I like working back from the Resurrection. If you establish the reliability of the Gospels and examine all the possible explanations for the empty tomb and the Twelve's reports of seeing a risen Jesus, then the Resurrection is the explanation that makes the most sense. If the Resurrection happened, then Jesus is Who He claimed to be and god exists. Of course the best evidence is yet to come. It will be hard to doubt God's existence when He will be the light source for the New Jerusalem! Well, a really stupid fundy atheist at the final judgement could try to claim that God is somehow like one of those fake gods that are merely aliens from Star Trek, but I'm sure God can easily disprove something so stupid.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
The fourth way is what I have been debating with Tassman and JimL regarding morals. They have both made comments that they think human kind's morals are "better" than they used to be (i.e. value of life, slavery, etc) and yet want to say morals are just relative. But they keep appealing to a "better" standard to which they measure past moral value and even present ones to. They don't seem to grasp that they are appealing to an objective moral standard of good and bad.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
|
5 responses
55 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-28-2024, 05:40 PM | ||
Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
|
369 responses
17,404 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by NorrinRadd
04-27-2024, 01:18 PM
|
Comment