Proofs for the Existence of God

[Roy]

Correct. The intellect is not a cognoscitive body. The intellect is a spirit, because of the manner by which the form of bodies is had in the intellect. There is absolutely no reason why the intellect is a physical body because of the manner by which the form of bodies is had in the intellect.

Nor is there any reason why the intellect is not a physical body. Ergo there is no reason to believe the intellect is a spirit.

The nature of the act of knowledge, whereby the body is known in a manner, which is not physical and as an accident of the intellect, concludes to the intellect as a power to act in a manner other than a physical power, which is then a spiritual power.

Unsupported assertion. You are simply redefining 'spiritual' to include the cognoscentive.

You have been caught ignoring the distinction you introduced because it is temporarily inconvenient, and are now trying to make an end run around the gaping hole in your argument.
It won't work.

[JohnMartin]

Correct. The intellect is not a cognoscitive body. The intellect is a spirit, because of the manner by which the form of bodies is had in the intellect. There is absolutely no reason why the intellect is a physical body because of the manner by which the form of bodies is had in the intellect.

Nor is there any reason why the intellect is not a physical body. Ergo there is no reason to believe the intellect is a spirit.

The manner by which the intellect has the form of a body, as an accidental quality within the intellect, means the intellect has a form of a body, whereby the form is had in a non physical manner. Hence, because the accidental quality within the intellect, whereby the intellect acts to know the body, means the act to know a body, is an act which is not physical. Hence, because the act of intellective knowledge is not physical, then so too, the nature of the intellect is also not physical. What is not physical, but exists and acts, is a spirit. Hence the intellect is a power of the spirit within man.

The nature of the act of knowledge, whereby the body is known in a manner, which is not physical and as an accident of the intellect, concludes to the intellect as a power to act in a manner other than a physical power, which is then a spiritual power.
Unsupported assertion. You are simply redefining 'spiritual' to include the cognoscentive.

You have been caught ignoring the distinction you introduced because it is temporarily inconvenient, and are now trying to make an end run around the gaping hole in your argument.
It won't work.

Or maybe you just don't get it. The intellect is indifferent to the body it knows. Therefore the intellect is not a body. The intellect also knows many bodies as forms had as accidents, which are all non physical. Hence the cognoscitive body known by the intellect is the form of the physical body, had in the intellect in a non physical manner. Hence the intellect is a spirit from both 1) indifference to having, or in some manner, becoming many bodies, whereby the intellect is not a body and 2) the manner by which the body is known in a supra physical manner, whereby the power to act above the physical is proportionate to the nature of the intellect as that which exists, without being a body.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Thats assuming of course that there's this thing you call an intellect. Without that assumption, what do you got?



Got to tell you John, the above looks like a lot of mumbo jumbo. You're making a great big assumption and then building an argument around it.

Maybe to you, what I have said is not understandable. Some works may be consulted below on the topic of the spirituality of the soul.

Psychology (Philosophy of Mind)

Abel, Donald C. "Intellectual Substance as Form of the Body in Aquinas," American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 69, Supplement (1995) 227-236.
Adler, Mortimer J. "Sense Cognition: Aristotle vs. Aquinas," New Scholasticism 42 (1968) 579-591.
Bertuzzi, Giovanni. "L'immortalita dell'Anima Razionale nella Dottrina di S. Tomasso," Divus Thomas 1 (1992).
Brennan, Sheila O'Flynn. "Sensing and the Sensitive Mean in Aristotle," New Scholasticism 47 (1973) 270-310.
Cohen, Sheldon M. "St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immaterial Reception of Sensible Forms," The Philosophical Review 91 (1982) 193-209.
Dales, Richard. The Problem of the Rational Soul in the Thirteenth Century. (Brill Academic Publishers, 1997). Order here.
Foster, David Ruel. "Aquinas on the Immateriality of the Intellect," Thomist 55 (1991).
______."Aquinas' Arguments for Spirit," American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 65, Supplement (1991).
Hackett, Jeremiah, ed. Aquinas on Mind and Intellect: New Essays. (Oakdale, NY: Dowling College Press, 1996).
Haldane, John. "Aquinas and the Active Intellect," Philosophy(UK) 67 (1992).
______. "Aquinas on Sense Perception," The Philosophical Review 92 (1983) 233-239.
Kenny, Anthony. Aquinas on Mind. (New York: Routledge, 1993). Order here.
Martin, James T. "Aquinas as a Commentator on De Anima 3.5," Thomist 57 (1993).
Novak, Joseph. "Aquinas and the Incorruptibility of the Soul," History of Philosophy Quarterly 4 (1987) 405-421.
Oguejiofor, J. Obi. The Philosophical Significance of Immortality in Thomas Aquinas. (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001). Order here.
Schmidt Andrade, Ciro E. "Santo Tomas y el "De Anima" (Comentario a los Caps. 4 y 5 del Libro III del "De Anima" de Aristoteles)," Analogia 8 (1994) 123-136.
Solere, Jean-Luc. "La Notion de Intentionnalite chez Thomas Aquinas," Philosophie(Paris) 24 (1989).
http://www.aquinasonline.com/Bibliography/#PSYCH

JM

[JohnMartin]

So then please do tell me what this prime being, which is pure act is.
No idea. It isn't necessarily pure act though, since your 'logic' again includes the fallacy of the inverse:

(p->q) -/-> (!p->!q).
(Moved by another -> having potency) -/-> (not moved by another -> not having potency)

The argument was only a summary version of the five ways, which assumes the principle of limited regress is used to arrive at the prime, unmoved, mover, etc.

Is pure act God, or a creature and make your case.

You haven't demonstrated that there is pure act, and you haven't linked any pure act to 'God'. Also, you seem to think that if pure act is not 'God' it must be a creature - but there are other possibilities.

There are no other possibilities. There are only the following options -

1) pure act - which is not a creature, therefore God.

2) composition of act and potency - which is a contingent being, hence a creature.

3) pure potency - which is only that which can be, but not in act.

As 1 and 2 are in act, and 3 is not in act, then ontologically there can only be God and creatures.

If your only objection at this point is that the prime being is not God because (atheistic excuse inserted),

That's not my only objection, as you'd know if you'd been paying attention, but it is the main one and it is not an excuse. You have failed to show that the prime being matches your concept of 'God', and not one of the myriad others.

The fault is in your criticism, whereby you claim "your concept of 'God'", which is merely an objection based upon your projecting subjectivism into theism. My argument is not subjective, but arrives at a supreme being, which is pure act. Such a being is not composed of potency and act, as creatures are composed. Therefore the supreme being is not a creature, and then other than a creature. That being must then be God.

then what is the difference between your version of atheism and the banal use of nominalism as an objection to what is quite an easy thing to understand - that the prime being, which is pure act is God.

It's very easy to understand. It's also very easy to understand "the prime being, which is stationary, is a banana", but that doesn't mean it's true. Incidentally, the same 'logic' you have used to 'prove' that the prime being is pure act and is God can also be used to prove that the prime being is stationary and is a banana. The 'proof' is left as an exercise for the reader.

It is not possible that the prime being is a creature, for a creature is composed, whereas the prime being is not composed, but pure act. Hence, because the only beings in act are either composed, or pure, then if pure, then not composed. Hence pure is not a creature, but God.

You've mixed up two aspects of theism. The first step is to identify the prime being as God. The second step is to identify the name of God through revelation. I have only made step one above.

Actually, the first step would be to show that there is a prime being, and the second step would be to show that the prime being is your God. By identifying the prime being as 'God' by default you are begging the question. You're also begging a different question by omitting step 2 entirely.

Step 2 is shown above, whereby there are only three possible manners by which a being can exist. Pure act is God.

You accuse me of question begging.

You just admitted it when you said you haven't done step 2.

Now clarified.

My reply is your accusation is merely nominalism, whereby you deny me the conclusion that the prime being is God.
You aren't concluding it, you're assuming it.

See above. Your claim that there can be another being, outside the God or creature categories is false. There can only be either God or a creature in act.

Also I can easily prove the prime being, which is pure act is God, through the use of reduction ad absurdum.
Really? Let's see which fallacy you've committed this time:

Yes really.

Conclusion - the prime being is God.
Conclusion denied by the atheist.
Then if the prime being...

Which prime being? The uncaused cause? The supreme intelligence? You have yet to show that all your various routes to a prime being lead to the same one.

There is only one prime being, which is pure act. Prime being is that being which is not dependent upon another for being. The prime is then act without potency, which is pure act.

is not God, then the prime being must be a creature.

Or a human, a spirit, a machine, an event, a cactus, a cosmic yoyo, a self-aware water globule, a white hole, a cause of diversity, a ripple in the fabric of space-time, an intelligent shade of blue, ...

All of your examples are creatures, because they are all limited and thereby composed of potency and act.

But the creature is composed of potency and act,

Unsupported assertion. Why can't a creature be pure act?

Pure act is necessary. A creature is only contingent, and therefore composed of potency and act.

But the prime being is pure act,
Fallacy of the inverse - see above.

Proven above.

which is not composed of potency and act.
Then the prime being is composed of potency and act, and not composed of potency and act.
Hence if the conclusion that the prime being is God, is denied a contradiction results.
Only if several unsupported assumptions based on the prime being being God are included.

You demand that I constantly prove every step, when such steps have already been proven on this thread. Such a demand is not reasonable.

Hence the conclusion that the prime being is God is true.
Not shown. See above.

Proven, for your objections have been answered.

Hence the atheists objection that the conclusion that the prime being is God is a begging of the question, is itself a fallacious claim.
Rubbish. You're simply spouting redefinitions, equivocations, assertions, assumptions and fallacies. You have not shown any connection from any of your multifarious prime beings to anything resembling a god.

I do believe I have now.

No. The thread remains and now you have no answer to the truth of theism. Atheism has been debunked.

And it remains debunked.

JM

[Roy]

Then if the prime being is not God, then the prime being must be a creature.

Or a human, a spirit, a machine, an event, a cactus, a cosmic yoyo, a self-aware water globule, a white hole, a cause of diversity, a ripple in the fabric of space-time, an intelligent shade of blue, ...

All of your examples are creatures, because they are all limited and thereby composed of potency and act.

I defy you to demonstrate that the cosmic yoyo is limited.

You're simply spouting redefinitions, equivocations, assertions, assumptions and fallacies. You have not shown any connection from any of your multifarious prime beings to anything resembling a god.

I do believe I have now.

You believe wrongly.

[JohnMartin]

I defy you to demonstrate that the cosmic yoyo is limited.

What is cosmic is limited to the cosmos.
The cosmic yoyo is limited to the cosmos.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

What is invented by the imagination is limited.
The cosmic yoyo is invented by the imagination.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

You believe wrongly.

Your atheism has less being than a cosmic yoyo. Atheism has been debunked.

JM

[Roy]

What is cosmic is limited to the cosmos.
The cosmic yoyo is limited to the cosmos.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

What is invented by the imagination is limited.
The cosmic yoyo is invented by the imagination.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
The nature of yoyo is not being, but other than a being.
The cosmic yoyo that exists has a nature of yoyo and has being as the cause of its actualization.
Being is the fundamental perfection of the cosmic yoyo.
As the cosmic yoyo has being, then it is not the cause of its own being.
The cosmic yoyo is dependent with regard to being,
What is dependent is in potency, and hence limited.
Hence the cosmic yoyo is limited.

Incidentally, this:

What is cosmic is limited to the cosmos.

is not necessarily true, this:

The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.

is an unsupported assertion, this:

The cosmic yoyo that exists ...

is unbelievably crazy, and this:

What is invented by the imagination is limited.

guarantees that your god is not the same entity as your supreme being. Well done.

[Roy]

I think this thread is over.

[JohnMartin]

I think this thread is over.

I think you need to think about you atheism some more. Atheism is so deficient on so many levels.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Incidentally, this:
What is cosmic is limited to the cosmos.
is not necessarily true, this:

Then the yoyo is not the cosmic yoyo. Which means the cosmic yoyo is just a nominalist game. Which means the cosmic yoyo is limited.

The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.
is an unsupported assertion, this:

We name things according to what they are. A yoyo has the nature of yoyo. Your comment is an unsupported assertion.

The cosmic yoyo that exists ...
is unbelievably crazy, and this:

If the yoyo exists, then it follows that . . . is not crazy. This is your idea and I'm following through upon your request.

What is invented by the imagination is limited.
guarantees that your god is not the same entity as your supreme being. Well done.

It only guarantees that your yoyo is an invention of the imagination. You conclusion doesn't follow.

Your atheism has been debunked so many times.

JM

[Roy]

The cosmic yoyo has the nature of yoyo.

is an unsupported assertion[/quote]We name things according to what they are. A yoyo has the nature of yoyo.[/quote]Welsh rabbit, saw horse, Lunar maria, Chelsea tractor, fool's gold, Indian pipe, sea cucumber, ...

You are an idiot.

Why don't you explain how you know that the "cosmic yoyo", which I made up on the spur of the moment, is actually a yoyo and not an octopus, an omnibus, an obelus, an ovibos or an oestrus?

[JohnMartin]

Welsh rabbit, saw horse, Lunar maria, Chelsea tractor, fool's gold, Indian pipe, sea cucumber, ...

You are an idiot.

Why don't you explain how you know that the "cosmic yoyo", which I made up on the spur of the moment, is actually a yoyo and not an octopus, an omnibus, an obelus, an ovibos or an oestrus?

I assumed you meant what you said. A yoyo is a yoyo and not something else.

JM

[Roy]

I assumed you meant what you said. A yoyo is a yoyo and not something else.

Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?

[JohnMartin]

Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?

If its a rabbit, if not, could be anything you want it to be. If its anything yo want it to be then it is either -

1) composed of potency and act, then it is a creature, or

2) pure act, then it is God.

JM

[Roy]

Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?

If its a rabbit, if not, could be anything you want it to be. If its anything yo want it to be then it is either -

1) composed of potency and act, then it is a creature, or

2) pure act, then it is God.

JM

So you don't know. Want to try again, or do I get to add "Welsh rabbit" to the cluelessness list?

1) Is a Welsh rabbit a rabbit?
2) If a Welsh rabbit is a rabbit, why didn't you simply say that?
3) If a Welsh rabbit is not a rabbit, why did you assume a cosmic yoyo was necessarily a yoyo?