Proofs for the Existence of God

[Roy]

The options regarding knowledge are as follows -

1) The rock becomes the intellect. This is self evidently false.

2) The rock and the intellect mix to become a rock-intellect. This is not possible if real knowledge is had, for the intellect would not know the rock, but the rock-intellect.

3) The intellect becomes the rock. Only this option is possible for knowledge to occur.

Except you've missed out
4) The intellect and the rock remain separate.

[JohnMartin]

Except you've missed out

4) The intellect and the rock remain separate.

That's all wrapped up in the manners of having form, which you butchered. It's pretty much irrelevant to the act of knowledge. The human soul is a spirit.

JM

[Roy]

That's all wrapped up in the manners of having form, which you butchered. It's pretty much irrelevant to the act of knowledge. The human soul is a spirit.

Repeating your original claim after a massive hole has been exposed in your 'logic' is not convincing.

The human intellect does not become a rock when it thinks about a rock, any more than the eyes become rocks when they look at a rock.

[JohnMartin]

Repeating your original claim after a massive hole has been exposed in your 'logic' is not convincing.

The human intellect does not become a rock when it thinks about a rock, any more than the eyes become rocks when they look at a rock.

No mate. You butchered the manners of having form by stating the doctrine of knowledge proposed inferred the intellect physically became the rock, when the manners of having form through knowledge simply do not require such to occur. You repeating your claim without making the distinction between the manners of having form, only means you didn't get the explanation given.

When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect remains entitatively a power of the soul, and the rock remains entitatively as rock. Yet in knowing the rock, the intellect receives the form of the rock and cognoscitively becomes the rock. When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect does not physically become the rock, as you stated.

By the intellect receiving the form of the rock, and objectively becoming the rock, via the cognoscitive manner of having the form of the rock, the intellect cognoscitively becomes the rock. As the intellect becomes the form of the rock, then the intellect can likewise become the form of any body, and hence the intellect is of itself not a body. Hence the intellect is a spirit.

Like atheism, materialism is easily debunked.

JM

[Roy]

No mate. You butchered the manners of having form by stating the doctrine of knowledge proposed inferred the intellect physically became the rock, when the manners of having form through knowledge simply do not require such to occur. You repeating your claim without making the distinction between the manners of having form, only means you didn't get the explanation given.

When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect remains entitatively a power of the soul, and the rock remains entitatively as rock. Yet in knowing the rock, the intellect receives the form of the rock and cognoscitively becomes the rock. When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect does not physically become the rock, as you stated.

You stated it, not me:

"For example, the man knows the tree and thereby his intellect becomes the tree."
"The intellect becomes the rock."

As the intellect becomes the form of the rock, then the intellect can likewise become the form of any body, and hence the intellect is of itself not a body. Hence the intellect is a spirit.

Difference highlighted. According to your logic the intellect is not "the [cognoscitive] form of any body". This does not preclude the intellect being a body, or part of a body.

[JohnMartin]

No mate. You butchered the manners of having form by stating the doctrine of knowledge proposed inferred the intellect physically became the rock, when the manners of having form through knowledge simply do not require such to occur. You repeating your claim without making the distinction between the manners of having form, only means you didn't get the explanation given.

When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect remains entitatively a power of the soul, and the rock remains entitatively as rock. Yet in knowing the rock, the intellect receives the form of the rock and cognoscitively becomes the rock. When the intellect becomes the thing known, the intellect does not physically become the rock, as you stated.
You stated it, not me:

"For example, the man knows the tree and thereby his intellect becomes the tree."
"The intellect becomes the rock."

As the intellect becomes the form of the rock, then the intellect can likewise become the form of any body, and hence the intellect is of itself not a body. Hence the intellect is a spirit.

Difference highlighted. According to your logic the intellect is not "the [cognoscitive] form of any body". This does not preclude the intellect being a body, or part of a body..

The statements were made within the context of establishing the differences in having form cognoscitively and physically. You left behind the cognoscitive manner and only focused upon the physical, by claiming the intellect must take on the physical properties of the rock. The manner by which a form is had cognoscitively is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. For the intellect to receive and thereby physically become the rock, for the form of the rock would be had physically and in a manner which is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. Yet such manner of having form by the intellect is adverse to the manner of having form subjectively, compositively, and physically.

Your observation is based in part upon what I previously stated, but which was given as only a summary version of the Thomistic psychology and also by you ignoring the manners by which a form is had.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The five ways of St Thomas arrive at the following conclusions, which imply a prime, pure act, which is God.

1) Unmoved mover - a moved mover is that which is moved to move by another mover. Such reduces to that which is in potency to move, is moved to move, by the act of movement, by a previous mover. Such reduces to potency does not actualise itself, but is actualised by that which is actual. Such a principle implies a prime mover, which is not moved by another, and hence does not have the potency to move. That which is without potency to move, is only in act to move. But that which is in act to move is in act, without potency, which is pure act.

2) Uncaused cause - a caused cause is that which is caused to cause by another cause. Such reduces to that which is in potency to cause, is caused to cause, by the act of causation, by a previous cause. Such reduces to potency does not actualise itself, but is actualised by that which is actual. Such a principle implies a prime cause, which is not caused by another, and hence does not have the potency to cause. That which is without potency to cause, is only in act to cause. But that which is in act to cause is in act, without potency, which is pure act.

3) Unordered orderer - similar argument for a ordered orderer, reduces to a prime orderer, which is pure act.

4) Necessary being - a contingent thing is that which is dependent with regard to being upon the cause of being. The contingent thing is in potency to be, which is enacted by being, as the actualization of all acts. Contingents things imply a first being which is not dependent upon another being for its act to be. The prime being is then unreceptive of being, which is pure act.

5) Unperfected perfector - similar argument for a perfected perfector, reduces to a prime perfector, which is pure act.

The prime, pure act is unlike all other things as follows -

1) The prime is the prime mover of all secondary motion. The prime is not dependent upon other movers, whereas, the secondary movers are dependent upon the prime.

2) The prime is uncaused, and the prime cause of all secondary causes. The prime is not dependent upon other causes, whereas, the secondary causes are dependent upon the prime.

3) The prime is unordered, and the prime orderer of all secondary orderers. The prime is not dependent upon other orderers, whereas, the secondary orderers are dependent upon the prime.

4) The prime is necessary, and the prime being of all secondary, contingent things with regard to being. The prime is not dependent upon other causes of being, whereas, the secondary, contingent things are dependent upon the prime.

5) The prime is unperfected, and the prime perfector of all secondary perfectors. The prime is not dependent upon other perfectors, whereas, the secondary perfectors are dependent upon the prime.

The prime is then analogous (more unlike than like) to the secondary, and containing all being, causation, perfection, without potency, and therefore, had simply (without parts) and without any change. The prime is then the supreme being, as an act without limit. Such a prime is its own act, which concludes to the prime nature as being. Such a prime fits the definition of God, who is being.

Therefore the five ways of St Thomas conclude to the one prime, who is God.

JM

[Roy]

The statements were made within the context of establishing the differences in having form cognoscitively and physically. You left behind the cognoscitive manner and only focused upon the physical, by claiming the intellect must take on the physical properties of the rock. The manner by which a form is had cognoscitively is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. For the intellect to receive and thereby physically become the rock, for the form of the rock would be had physically and in a manner which is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. Yet such manner of having form by the intellect is adverse to the manner of having form subjectively, compositively, and physically.

Your observation is based in part upon what I previously stated, but which was given as only a summary version of the Thomistic psychology and also by you ignoring the manners by which a form is had.

This is what you wrote:

"Analogously, the human intellect can know a tree, mountain, sun, rock, table and chair. As the human intellect can be many bodies, the human intellect of itself is not a body. Therefore the nature of the human intellect is not bodily, but something other than a body."

Your 'logic' requires that the human intellect becomes a physical body. If the human intellect becomes a cognoscitive body, not a physical body, then by your own 'logic' the human intellect is not a cognoscitive body, and there is no reason why the human intellect cannot be a physical body, and therefore no need for the human intellect to be a spirit.

[Roy]

The five ways of St Thomas arrive at the following conclusions, which imply a prime, pure act, which is God...
Such a prime fits the definition of God...
Therefore the five ways of St Thomas conclude to the one prime, who is God.

This is still the usual apologetics "This is God" shell game.

Start with some reasonable argument about causes, or events, or forces, or emotional states, or something similar.
Conclude there must have been some first cause or initial event etc.
Say "This is God".

All of these 'proofs' of God take this form. None of them include any attempt to link the first cause/initial event/etc to any of the other trappings associated with your god - scripture, prayer, angels, sin, omniscience, transubstantiation - or to explain why it's your god and not Unkulunkulu or Ptah or Ometeotl.

You failed to resolve this issue previously, your 'logic' demonstrating only that you are dumber than a turnip. Now you're repeating the same question-begging arguments with no acknowledgement of the objections that have already been raised against them.

This thread is effectively over. There is nothing left to do but point and laugh.

[JohnMartin]

This is still the usual apologetics "This is God" shell game.

Start with some reasonable argument about causes, or events, or forces, or emotional states, or something similar.
Conclude there must have been some first cause or initial event etc.
Say "This is God".

So then please do tell me what this prime being, which is pure act is. Is pure act God, or a creature and make your case. If your only objection at this point is that the prime being is not God because (atheistic excuse inserted), 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.

All of these 'proofs' of God take this form. None of them include any attempt to link the first cause/initial event/etc to any of the other trappings associated with your god - scripture, prayer, angels, sin, omniscience, transubstantiation - or to explain why it's your god and not Unkulunkulu or Ptah or Ometeotl.

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.

You failed to resolve this issue previously, your 'logic' demonstrating only that you are dumber than a turnip. Now you're repeating the same question-begging arguments with no acknowledgement of the objections that have already been raised against them.

You accuse me of question begging. My reply is your accusation is merely nominalism, whereby you deny me the conclusion that the prime being is God. Also I can easily prove the prime being, which is pure act is God, through the use of reduction ad absurdum.

Conclusion - the prime being is God.
Conclusion denied by the atheist.
Then if the prime being is not God, then the prime being must be a creature.
But the creature is composed of potency and act,
But the prime being is pure act, 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.
Hence the conclusion that the prime being is God is true.

Hence the atheists objection that the conclusion that the prime being is God is a begging of the question, is itself a fallacious claim.

This thread is effectively over. There is nothing left to do but point and laugh.

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

JM

[JohnMartin]

The statements were made within the context of establishing the differences in having form cognoscitively and physically. You left behind the cognoscitive manner and only focused upon the physical, by claiming the intellect must take on the physical properties of the rock. The manner by which a form is had cognoscitively is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. For the intellect to receive and thereby physically become the rock, for the form of the rock would be had physically and in a manner which is objectively, supra physically, and incompositively. Yet such manner of having form by the intellect is adverse to the manner of having form subjectively, compositively, and physically.

Your observation is based in part upon what I previously stated, but which was given as only a summary version of the Thomistic psychology and also by you ignoring the manners by which a form is had.

Roy - This is what you wrote:

"Analogously, the human intellect can know a tree, mountain, sun, rock, table and chair. As the human intellect can be many bodies, the human intellect of itself is not a body. Therefore the nature of the human intellect is not bodily, but something other than a body."

Your 'logic' requires that the human intellect becomes a physical body. If the human intellect becomes a cognoscitive body, not a physical body, then by your own 'logic' the human intellect is not a cognoscitive body, and there is no reason why the human intellect cannot be a physical body, and therefore no need for the human intellect to be a spirit.

The logic has been explained through the manners of having form by both 1) a knower and 2) a non knower. The intellect has the the form of the body known (eg rock), whereby that form is had objectively, supra-physically, and incompositively. Such distinctions were not made within the initial argument. But the initial argument was only a summary version which left out much detail. I did predict the argument would not persuade you and it has not. Now that the distinction has been made, your objection has been at least in part answered.

A consequence of the principle of indeterminacy is - that which is indeterminate in one respect, has a nature diverse from the manner in which is it indeterminate. For what is indeterminate is not of nature, but what is determinate is of nature. For example, water is indeterminately many temperatures, hence the nature of water is other than temperature. Analogously, intellective knowledge is indeterminate with respect to the knower, which in some manner may be many bodies, and hence indeterminate with respect to body, as body. Therefore as intellective knowledge is indeterminate with respect to body, then the act of intellective knowledge in itself has a nature other than a body.

As the water is accidentally many temperatures and of itself is substantially other than temperature, so too, intellective knowledge has the thing known as an accident of the power of intellective knowledge. Hence the power of knowledge, which is accidentally many bodies, is of itself other than a body, and hence not a body. The intellect is then a power of the spiritual soul.

JM

[Roy]

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

You accuse me of question begging.

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

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.

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:

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.

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, ...

But the creature is composed of potency and act,

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

But the prime being is pure act,

Fallacy of the inverse - see 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.

Hence the conclusion that the prime being is God is true.

Not shown. See above.

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.

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

[Roy]

Your 'logic' requires that the human intellect becomes a physical body. If the human intellect becomes a cognoscitive body, not a physical body, then by your own 'logic' the human intellect is not a cognoscitive body, and there is no reason why the human intellect cannot be a physical body, and therefore no need for the human intellect to be a spirit.

The logic has been explained through the manners of having form by both 1) a knower and 2) a non knower. The intellect has the the form of the body known (eg rock), whereby that form is had objectively, supra-physically, and incompositively. Such distinctions were not made within the initial argument. But the initial argument was only a summary version which left out much detail. I did predict the argument would not persuade you and it has not. Now that the distinction has been made, your objection has been at least in part answered.

Now that the distinction has been made a gaping hole in your argument has been highlighted, and you are running away from it.

For example:

A consequence of the principle of indeterminacy is - that which is indeterminate in one respect, has a nature diverse from the manner in which is it indeterminate. For what is indeterminate is not of nature, but what is determinate is of nature. For example, water is indeterminately many temperatures, hence the nature of water is other than temperature. Analogously, intellective knowledge is indeterminate with respect to the knower, which in some manner may be many bodies,

Cognoscitive bodies. Not physical ones.

You raised this distinction, stop ignoring it when it's inconvenient.

...and hence indeterminate with respect to body, as body.

With respect to cognoscitive body.

Therefore as intellective knowledge is indeterminate with respect to body,

Cognoscitive body

... then the act of intellective knowledge in itself has a nature other than a body.

Other than a cognoscitive body.

As the water is accidentally many temperatures and of itself is substantially other than temperature, so too, intellective knowledge has the thing known as an accident of the power of intellective knowledge. Hence the power of knowledge, which is accidentally many bodies,

Many cognoscitive bodies.

... is of itself other than a body,

Other than a cognoscitive body.

and hence not a body.

Not a cognoscitive body.

The intellect is then a power of the spiritual soul.

Or a power of a body that isn't a cognoscitive body, but a physical one.

Feel free to substitute 'objectively', 'supra-physically' or 'incompositively' for 'cognoscitively' in the above. It won't make any difference, you'll still be ignoring your own distinction when it's inconvenient.

[JohnMartin]

Your 'logic' requires that the human intellect becomes a physical body.

False. The analogy of the water at many temperatures (which is an accident of water), indicates the nature of water is not temperature. Analogously, the intellect becomes many bodies when those bodies are known, whereby the body known is an accident of the intellect. As the water temperature is not the nature of water, for water is indifferent to temperature, then so too, the intellect, which is indifferent to body as an accidental quality of the intellect, is not a body.

If the human intellect becomes a cognoscitive body, not a physical body, then by your own 'logic' the human intellect is not a cognoscitive body, and there is no reason why the human intellect cannot be a physical body, and therefore no need for the human intellect to be a spirit.

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. Form is had in the intellect in a manner that is foreign to the manner of having form in a physical body.

You have merely equated the intellect becoming many bodies, or cognoscitive bodies with the intellect being a physical body. Such is false, because the intellect becomes many bodies

1) whereby the body is an accidental quality residing in the intellect.

2) the quality of the accident is a form had objectively, supra physically, and incompositively.

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. We it is said that the intellect becomes many bodies, it does so accidentally, which means the intellect is accidentally indifferent to becoming many bodies and therefore from the nature of intellect (which is not accidental), the intellect must be other than 1) a body which is physical, and 2) a cognoscitive body, which is only accidental to the nature of the intellect.

Hence the intellect is neither a body, nor a cognoscitive body, but other than both, which is a spirit.

JM

[JimL]

False. The analogy of the water at many temperatures (which is an accident of water), indicates the nature of water is not temperature. Analogously, the intellect becomes many bodies when those bodies are known, whereby the body known is an accident of the intellect. As the water temperature is not the nature of water, for water is indifferent to temperature, then so too, the intellect, which is indifferent to body as an accidental quality of the intellect, is not a body.

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

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. Form is had in the intellect in a manner that is foreign to the manner of having form in a physical body.

You have merely equated the intellect becoming many bodies, or cognoscitive bodies with the intellect being a physical body. Such is false, because the intellect becomes many bodies

1) whereby the body is an accidental quality residing in the intellect.

2) the quality of the accident is a form had objectively, supra physically, and incompositively.

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. We it is said that the intellect becomes many bodies, it does so accidentally, which means the intellect is accidentally indifferent to becoming many bodies and therefore from the nature of intellect (which is not accidental), the intellect must be other than 1) a body which is physical, and 2) a cognoscitive body, which is only accidental to the nature of the intellect.

Hence the intellect is neither a body, nor a cognoscitive body, but other than both, which is a spirit.

JM

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.