The Infinitely lazy God?

[MaxVel]

If you know the argument then you should know I responded to all of it.

There are Five 'Ways' in Aquinas' metaphysics, so there's not one argument, but five seperate ones.

1) Aquinas claims God to be the unmoved mover. Answer: If God is not in motion himself, then how does he initiate motion?

This makes no sense in terms of Aquinas' metaphysics, AFAICT. Something potential can only be reduced from potential to actuality by something that is itself actual. So fire,which is actually hot, makes wood, which is only potentially hot, become actually hot. The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality.

PS: Aquinas' doesn't 'claim' that God is the unmoved mover, he argues to that conclusion. Not to say that he is necessarily correct, but it's not a claim.

PPS: I'm using terms from Aquinas' metaphysics, so the sense is not the same as we might take them. Eg 'motion' is our 'change'

2) Aquinas claims there must be a first cause. Answer: If God himself does not require a cause, then neither does the Cosmos/energy require a cause.

That's not anything like an accurate summary of Aquinas' second way. Try again. Secondly, the argument doesn't claim that 'everything except for God needs a cause'.

3) Aquinas claims the need of a necessary existence distinct from contingent existences. Answer: In the universe Necessity and contingency are reflexive as in energy and matter (E=mc2). So contingent things are not dependent upon a distinct cause. Cause and effect are of one and the same source.

You're saying that 'things which depend on something else for their existence' (i.e. contingent things) don't need a cause? That's a self-contradiction, and so can't be a sustainable objection to an argument.

4) Aquinas argues that there are degrees of goodness and that therefore God is the greatest good. Answer: If there are degrees of goodness, there are also degrees of evil, ergo God must also be defined as the greatest evil.

Aquinas is arguing for the existence of transcendentals as pointing to the existence of God. Evil is not a transcendental but an absence of good. (Note that good here doesn't mean moral good, but something more like 'perfection in being'

5) Aquinas argues that the apparent intelligence seen in the order and perfection of nature requires an intelligent creator. Answer: Why then doesn't God himself need an intelligent designer?

Briefly, because the buck has to stop somewhere. The argument here is concerned with explaining why we see any causal regularities at all. What sustains existence here and now?

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, the fact is science is often just wrong. Growing up I was taught that the universe was in a Steady State, how may scientific medical studies have been overthrown?

You are describing scientific knowledge based on the evidence at the time. Medical practices and treatment will always change over time. so what? You reject science from the beginning, or maybe selectively use it when it suits your agenda.

And if science is in flux, then again, nothing is written in stone. No need to worship at its alter as you do.

The highlighted above reflects your self imposed ignorance concerning science and misrepresents my view concerning science.

You hostile and negative view toward science colors everything with a putrid smell.

[MaxVel]

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

© Copyright Original Source

Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.

Part I assumes that there must be an unmoved mover since everything moves.

That's not what your cite actually says, so.... wrong.

Part II assumes there is there is a First Efficient Cause that is Divine. It is possible the First Cause is simply Natural Law.

Silly. Natural Law can't cause anything.

Part III Assumes a necessary being not dependent on anything else.

, No it argues for something that is necessary to explain the existence of all the contingent things we observe around us. You obviously don't know what 'assumes' and 'argues for' mean.

Part IV assumes there must be a Absolute God Being. Part V assumes a Great Designer is necessary to explain complexity in nature.

None of these assumptions are necessary.

More unsupported assertions based on your ignorance of philosophy. Aquinas gives arguments - premises that logically lead to a conclusion. His arguments may fail, but they are still actual arguments. They are not assumptions.

ETA: Your own citation even says that "Thomas argues..." .

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=MaxVel;194939]

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

© Copyright Original Source

Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.

That's not what your cite actually says, so.... wrong.

Explanation appreciated.

Silly. Natural Law can't cause anything.

Silly, silly!! Natural Law is the only objectively observed cause of everything known. You need to do better then that!

, No it argues for something that is necessary to explain the existence of all the contingent things we observe around us. You obviously don't know what 'assumes' and 'argues for' mean.

I see no argument, only assumptions, you are welcome to present an argument. Again here by the objective evidence the only known thing that everything (all contingent things) we observe around us is Natural Law. There is no known objective evidence that Natural Law has a cause. This only an assumption of the argument.

More unsupported assertions based on your ignorance of philosophy. Aquinas gives arguments - premises that logically lead to a conclusion. His arguments may fail, but they are still actual arguments. They are not assumptions.

I at present see only assumptions the same as the conclusions, but you are free to present the argument without assumptions.

ETA: Your own citation even says that "Thomas argues..." .

The citation does not mean that there is in reality a valid argument.

[JimL]

There are Five 'Ways' in Aquinas' metaphysics, so there's not one argument, but five seperate ones.

Obviously, which is why you are responding to all five of my responses to to Aquinas's argument below.

This makes no sense in terms of Aquinas' metaphysics, AFAICT. Something potential can only be reduced from potential to actuality by something that is itself actual. So fire,which is actually hot, makes wood, which is only potentially hot, become actually hot. The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality.

And you are assuming that motion was only a potentiality which at some point in time became actualized, and second that whatever the actuality was that the portentiality emerged from was of a distinct nature than that of the potentiality itself. I can make a scientific argument that has more validity than Aquinas's philosophical meanderings.: Nothing comes from nothing, including motion. And by that I mean that motion doesn't come from non motion.

The 'unmoved mover' is pure actuality

.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

PS: Aquinas' doesn't 'claim' that God is the unmoved mover, he argues to that conclusion. Not to say that he is necessarily correct, but it's not a claim.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

PPS: I'm using terms from Aquinas' metaphysics, so the sense is not the same as we might take them. Eg 'motion' is our 'change'

And that is a distinction without a difference.

That's not anything like an accurate summary of Aquinas' second way. Try again.

Thats an assertion, not a refutation.

Secondly, the argument doesn't claim that 'everything except for God needs a cause'.

Really, so there is no need of a distinct and uncaused cause which is the cause of all else? What other than God does not need a cause? The Cosmos maybe? Energy? Motion?

You're saying that 'things which depend on something else for their existence' (i.e. contingent things) don't need a cause? That's a self-contradiction, and so can't be a sustainable objection to an argument.

No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that effects and their causes are reflexive, that neither is dependent upon the other because they are merely different forms of one and the same substance such as is the case for energy and matter. E=mc2 !

Aquinas is arguing for the existence of transcendentals as pointing to the existence of God. Evil is not a transcendental but an absence of good. (Note that good here doesn't mean moral good, but something more like 'perfection in being'

All this is naught but an assertion that there is a good, or if you prefer, a perfection, a world, a God, that exists apart from the universe itself which is better than the universe. But to assert that there is something beyond the cosmos which is more perfect than the cosmos because you don't consider the nature of the cosmos to be what you would define as good is just wishful thinking. Good and bad are just human terms having to do with human concerns and not with the nature of existence itself.

Briefly, because the buck has to stop somewhere. The argument here is concerned with explaining why we see any causal regularities at all. What sustains existence here and now?

So, the buck stops here. Existence sustains itself. Just as in the notion of God, there is no need to explain what it is that sustains that which is.

[MaxVel]

Obviously, which is why you are responding to all five of my responses to to Aquinas's argument below.






And you are assuming that motion was only a potentiality which at some point in time became actualized, and second that whatever the actuality was that the portentiality emerged from was of a distinct nature than that of the potentiality itself. I can make a scientific argument that has more validity than Aquinas's philosophical meanderings.: Nothing comes from nothing, including motion. And by that I mean that motion doesn't come from non motion.

.
The 'unmoved mover' is pure assertion.

Well, actually he is merely making use of Aristotlian metaphysics to rationalize his own beliefs. Eternity, prima facie, does not require a beginning to anything, including motion.

And that is a distinction without a difference.





Thats an assertion, not a refutation.

Really, so there is no need of a distinct and uncaused cause which is the cause of all else? What other than God does not need a cause? The Cosmos maybe? Energy? Motion?




No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that effects and their causes are reflexive, that neither is dependent upon the other because they are merely different forms of one and the same substance such as is the case for energy and matter. E=mc2 !





All this is naught but an assertion that there is a good, or if you prefer, a perfection, a world, a God, that exists apart from the universe itself which is better than the universe. But to assert that there is something beyond the cosmos which is more perfect than the cosmos because you don't consider the nature of the cosmos to be what you would define as good is just wishful thinking. Good and bad are just human terms having to do with human concerns and not with the nature of existence itself.






So, the buck stops here. Existence sustains itself. Just as in the notion of God, there is no need to explain what it is that sustains that which is.

JimL, you clearly don't understand enough about Aquinas' arguments to make informed objections to them. Perhaps his arguments all fail, but at least one has to understand what he's actually saying to make substantive objections to them. I recommed Edward Feser's 'Aquinas: A beginner's guide' as a cheap, accessible and readily available guide to at least getting some understanding of what Aquinas was actually arguing.

[MaxVel]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;194966]

Source: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/aquinas.shtml

B.Part I. The Argument from Motion. (Thomas argues that since everything that moves is moved by another, there must thereby exist an Unmoved Mover.)
C.Part II. The Argument from Efficient Cause. (The sequence of causes which make up this universe must have a First Cause.)
D.Part III. The Argument to Necessary Being. (Since all existent things depend upon other things for their existence, there must exist at least one thing that is not dependent and so is a Necessary Being.)
E.Part IV. The Argument from Gradation. (Since all existent things can be compared to such qualities as degrees of goodness, there must exist something that is an Absolutely Good Being.)
F.Part V. The Argument from Design. (Also named “The Teleological Argument”— The intricate design and order of existent things and natural processes imply that a Great Designer exists.)

© Copyright Original Source

Aquinas argues for his conclusions. Professional philosophers of all stripes have found his arguments worth responding to (some agree, some disagree with his conclusions). Your assertion that Aquinas just 'assumes God's existence' simply shows your ignorance.







Explanation appreciated.



Silly, silly!! Natural Law is the only objectively observed cause of everything known. You need to do better then that!



I see no argument, only assumptions, you are welcome to present an argument. Again here by the objective evidence the only known thing that everything (all contingent things) we observe around us is Natural Law. There is no known objective evidence that Natural Law has a cause. This only an assumption of the argument.



I at present see only assumptions the same as the conclusions, but you are free to present the argument without assumptions.



The citation does not mean that there is in reality a valid argument.

Aquinas does not represent modern arguments for the existence of God. I consider them too anthropomorphic and self justified arguments and mostly too circular assuming God exists in the beginning.

You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.

[shunyadragon]

You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.

No argument presented only assertion. I did not argue by web link. I cited the web site, as others did and you likewise have not responded with an adequate argument.

Your copping out with a lazy response, in fact responding to JimL with reference to a book, with presenting a coherent argument. Sort of arguing by web link. It would help if you actually present a coherent argument for at least one of Aquina's Ways.

[JimL]

JimL, you clearly don't understand enough about Aquinas' arguments to make informed objections to them.

Thats all you've got MaxVell? Thats quite a detailed refutation.

Perhaps his arguments all fail,

Perhaps. But you do not believe so, so why don't you explain to us why you think they are solid arguments?

but at least one has to understand what he's actually saying to make substantive objections to them.

Your assertion that I don't understand, without explaining why is just a cop out Max.

I recommed Edward Feser's 'Aquinas: A beginner's guide' as a cheap, accessible and readily available guide to at least getting some understanding of what Aquinas was actually arguing.

And I recommend that you actually answer to the post rather than asserting your superiority by telling me to go read a book. You haven't proved that you understand, or are prepared to defend, anything concerning Aquinas's 5 ways. Perhaps you should go re-read Feser's 'Aquinas so that you could actually make a cogent argument of your own.

[MaxVel]

No argument presented only assertion. I did not argue by web link. I cited the web site, as others did and you likewise have not responded with an adequate argument.

Your copping out with a lazy response, in fact responding to JimL with reference to a book, with presenting a coherent argument. Sort of arguing by web link. It would help if you actually present a coherent argument for at least one of Aquina's Ways.

Not here, and not now. I'm too busy.

And...

...you claimed a bunch of stuff about Aquinas' arguments that you haven't been able to support. Now somehow it's my job to show that your unsupported claim is wrong?

[MaxVel]

Thats all you've got MaxVell? Thats quite a detailed refutation.

I don't need anything more to refute someone who pretty much doesn't understand the argument he's objecting to. To even begin to understand what Aquinas is actually saying one needs to study and understand the metaphysical background and terminology he uses. That's not something that can be done in one or two short posts. You've already shown me that you don't understand, and that you don't want to understand. Your objections rest on straw; misunderstandings, and confusions about what Aquinas means.


Secondly, I'm pretty busy IRL right now; thirdly, there are plenty of resources available online or in books if you're sincerely interested in actually understanding (which, based on previous interactions, I really doubt) what Aquinas is arguing.


Just to illustrate: Can you explain the difference between series ordered per accidens and per se?

[shunyadragon]

You haven't supported your claims. Even the source you cited in support says you're wrong. The burden is on you to cite actual arguments and show they are circular, not argue by weblink - which you hypocritically condemned earlier.

[MaxVel]

Briefly -

misunderstands what Aquinas means by 'good' in his arguments

Nonsense objection about causality going in a circle

Misunderstands or doesn't realise that Aquinas is not arguing about temporal sequences of causality


What are the author's qualification to speak as an expert on Aquinas? I note that this is some occult/witchcraft group website: Under their 'Doctrine' link we find:

Do what thou Will shall be the whole of the Law.

- a philosophy made famous by Aleister Crowley. Hmmm...

[Darth Ovious]

What are the author's qualification to speak as an expert on Aquinas? I note that this is some occult/witchcraft group website: Under their 'Doctrine' link we find:

- a philosophy made famous by Aleister Crowley. Hmmm...

I've seen that name before. He is credited by some people to be the influencer of the satanic church. The satanic church deny it, but it doesn't matter because they all crazy anyway.

[JimL]

Not here, and not now. I'm too busy.

Might i remind you Max that it was you who brought up the issue of Aquinas.

And...

...you claimed a bunch of stuff about Aquinas' arguments that you haven't been able to support. Now somehow it's my job to show that your unsupported claim is wrong?

As above, yes it is your job. If you don't want, or unable to defend Aquinas, then don't bring it up.