Problems with Thomas Aquinas aguments for the existence of God

[JimL]

How do you know that?

Other than the fact that Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it is common sense that just as it is the case that, from nothing, something doesn't come, that the opposite is also true, that from something, nothing doesn't come.

[shunyadragon]

You missed the point, if it is possible for something to go out of existence then it will. And if it that is the case then at some point nothing existed. For you to counter the argument you have to show that it impossible for things to go out of existence.

Science does not show that things are impossible nor possible. There is no evidence that anything has ever gone out of existence. There is no time that Natural Law has ever not existed. Science falsifies hypothesis concerning the physical nature of our existence. One result is The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

[shunyadragon]

Epistemology is the other side of the coin of metaphysics, which is to say that most epistemic 'proofs' entail at least implicit metaphysical presuppositions. To avoid such is to adopt a radical skepticism that can never be truly overcome by pure logic. I happen to believe that all reasoning, insofar as it is necessarily informed by perception, experience, intuition, and implicit presuppositions, is unavoidably circular at some fundamental levels, but in a way that we have learned to trust in our daily lives. To evaluate Aristotle or Thomas from a perspective of a modern metaphysical is anachronistic just as post-Tridentine and modern apologetic attempts to rely on Thomistic 'arguments' are also hopelessly anachronistic. Thomas' contribution was the systematic integration of several streams of thought, one of which was a medieval interpretation of Aristotle, into the Catholic intellectual tradition, nothing more, nothing less.

You pretty much confirmed my purpose in this thread in the highlighted. I acknowledge the contributions of Thomas and Aristotle, but I do not believe it is justified to present the Thomas Aquinas arguments in modern apologetic arguments for the existence of God in the modern perspective. Many theologians and apologist go to considerable ends to rework these old arguments in an attempt to make them relevant to the modern philosophical perspective, like Dr. Edward Feser, and this fails.

[robrecht]

You pretty much confirmed my purpose in this thread in the highlighted. I acknowledge the contributions of Thomas and Aristotle, but I do not believe it is justified to present the Thomas Aquinas arguments in modern apologetic arguments for the existence of God in the modern perspective. Many theologians and apologist go to considerable ends to rework these old arguments in an attempt to make them relevant to the modern philosophical perspective, like Dr. Edward Feser, and this fails.

[seer]

Other than the fact that Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it is common sense that just as it is the case that, from nothing, something doesn't come, that the opposite is also true, that from something, nothing doesn't come.

But you don't know that, you don't know if at all times in all places that energy can't be created or destroyed. Look at it this way - if something can change then it can change into non-existence. And if that is possible then it will happen - given enough time. And we know that energy can change.

[seer]

Science does not show that things are impossible nor possible. There is no evidence that anything has ever gone out of existence. There is no time that Natural Law has ever not existed. Science falsifies hypothesis concerning the physical nature of our existence. One result is The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a chemical reaction.

No, he (Aquinas) only has to show that things change. If they can change then given enough time they will change to a state of non-existence. And the first law is not known to be universal, it can't be because we do not have universal knowledge. Even if it was we have the second law were energy ultimately become useless. And if energy can not longer work (a change) then of what use is it? Its dynamic ability is lost. It effectively has gone out of existence.

[JimL]

But you don't know that, you don't know if at all times in all places that energy can't be created or destroyed. Look at it this way - if something can change then it can change into non-existence. And if that is possible then it will happen - given enough time. And we know that energy can change.

Well, we know that energy can neither increase or decrease, neither be created or destroyed, in a closed system. The energy of the universe today, is the same energy it has always been, even as the universe expands its energy remains the same. So the no increase, no decrease law would have to hold true whether the universe is finite or infinite, since there is nothing, no place, outside of an infinite system for the energy to go. If energy can't be destroyed in a finite system, then it only makes sense that it can't be desroyed period. The idea that something can change in form, therefore it can change into non-existence, is not a logical conclusion. Changing its form on the one hand, and becoming non-existent on the other, are two distinct and unrelated concepts.

[seer]

Well, we know that energy can neither increase or decrease, neither be created or destroyed, in a closed system. The energy of the universe today, is the same energy it has always been, even as the universe expands its energy remains the same. So the no increase, no decrease law would have to hold true whether the universe is finite or infinite, since there is nothing, no place, outside of an infinite system for the energy to go. If energy can't be destroyed in a finite system, then it only makes sense that it can't be desroyed period. The idea that something can change in form, therefore it can change into non-existence, is not a logical conclusion. Changing its form on the one hand, and becoming non-existent on the other, are two distinct and unrelated concepts.

If energy becomes useless Jim (non-working) then how is it energy in any real sense of the word?

[shunyadragon]

But you don't know that, you don't know if at all times in all places that energy can't be created or destroyed. Look at it this way - if something can change then it can change into non-existence. And if that is possible then it will happen - given enough time. And we know that energy can change.

Seer, you're tripping into the Fallacy of Absolutes. Of course we do not know absolutely anything, this includes you. Logic and reason deals with reality, and not what we absolutely know nor do we absolutely not know.

[JimL]

If energy becomes useless Jim (non-working) then how is it energy in any real sense of the word?

Defining energy as diluted and so mostly useless means that it still exists in the real sense of the word, though it is mostly useless. But its becoming dilute and useless is do to the increased volume of the expanding and finite nature of our own particular universe, or patch of the Cosmos. I don't think it is known what that means with regard to an infinite, non expanding, cosmos. The energy would remain constant as well as useful I would guess. Even if it were at equalibrium and useless in that state, fluctuations causing concentrated and so useful energy from place to place could occur. Uselessness need not be absolute.

[seer]

Seer, you're tripping into the Fallacy of Absolutes. Of course we do not know absolutely anything, this includes you. Logic and reason deals with reality, and not what we absolutely know nor do we absolutely not know.

Then it could be possible for energy to go out of existence, and if it is possible it will happen - given enough of time.

[seer]

Defining energy as diluted and so mostly useless means that it still exists in the real sense of the word, though it is mostly useless. But its becoming dilute and useless is do to the increased volume of the expanding and finite nature of our own particular universe, or patch of the Cosmos. I don't think it is known what that means with regard to an infinite, non expanding, cosmos. The energy would remain constant as well as useful I would guess. Even if it were at equalibrium and useless in that state, fluctuations causing concentrated and so useful energy from place to place could occur. Uselessness need not be absolute.

Again Jim, change and change and change. And if something can change, given all possibilities, it will cease to exist, i.e. reach that possibility - given enough time.

[JimL]

Again Jim, change and change and change. And if something can change, given all possibilities, it will cease to exist, i.e. reach that possibility - given enough time.

Thats not even a reasonable argument seer. Given all possibilities, anything is possible, but there is none, zilch, zero evidence that the substance of an existing thing can become non-existent.

[37818]

Yes, people speak of this thing as God. The assumption in this argument is that God is the uncaused cause of all of existence, which makes it circular.

If Natural Law has existed infinitely then it could potentially be the uncaused cause of all existence.

There is no evidence that in the past nothing existed. This would be an argument for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo.' This would be another priori assumption for the existence of God.

If Natural Law has existed infinitely . . .

Presumes an existence preceding it.

[shunyadragon]

No, he (Aquinas) only has to show that things change. If they can change then given enough time they will change to a state of non-existence. And the first law is not known to be universal, it can't be because we do not have universal knowledge. Even if it was we have the second law were energy ultimately become useless. And if energy can not longer work (a change) then of what use is it? Its dynamic ability is lost. It effectively has gone out of existence.

Like the Rabbit in the hat magician act. Hypothetical nonsense of magical acts is not convincing.

Showing things change is obvious in the world around us. Try Houdini for magic tricks where things disappear.