Problems with Thomas Aquinas aguments for the existence of God

[shunyadragon]

Presumes an existence preceding it.

No it does not. In science one must propose a falsifiable hypothesis for such presumption to be considered possible. Hypothetical presumptions for an argument to justify the conclusion such as this just increases its circular nature.

[seer]

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.

If you agree that it is possible then the possibility of reaching non-existence is a certainty given enough time. And it is therefore possible that nothing exists.

[shunyadragon]

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

Energy at the zero-point vacuum quantum state, and the highest level of entropy:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.[1] The term zero-point energy is a translation from the German Nullpunktsenergie.[2]:275ff

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Energy at the zero-point vacuum quantum state, and the highest level of entropy:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state.

All quantum mechanical systems undergo fluctuations even in their ground state and have an associated zero-point energy, a consequence of their wave-like nature. The uncertainty principle requires every physical system to have a zero-point energy greater than the minimum of its classical potential well. This results in motion even at absolute zero. For example, liquid helium does not freeze under atmospheric pressure at any temperature because of its zero-point energy.

The concept of zero-point energy was developed by Max Planck in Germany in 1911 as a corrective term added to a zero-grounded formula developed in his original quantum theory in 1900.[1] The term zero-point energy is a translation from the German Nullpunktsenergie.[2]:275ff

Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field. It is the energy of the vacuum, which in quantum field theory is defined not as empty space but as the ground state of the fields. In cosmology, the vacuum energy is one possible explanation for the cosmological constant.[3] A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a particular field.

© Copyright Original Source

Oh stop, it has been shown by Boxing and others you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You quote sources that you don't understand.

[shunyadragon]

Oh stop, it has been shown by Boxing and others you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You quote sources that you don't understand.

The answer was specific and source cited. Deal with it!

Energy is never useless, that is a foolish anthropomorphic notion.

[JimL]

If you agree that it is possible then the possibility of reaching non-existence is a certainty given enough time. And it is therefore possible that nothing exists.

No seer, I'm not agreeing that it is possible, i'm only agreeing that we don't know with certainty if it is possible one way or the other. The evidence is that it is not possible for something to become nothing, for that which exists to become non existent.

[shunyadragon]

No seer, I'm not agreeing that it is possible, i'm only agreeing that we don't know with certainty if it is possible one way or the other. The evidence is that it is not possible for something to become nothing, for that which exists to become non existent.

simply, the Laws of Thermodynamics.

[shunyadragon]

Oh stop, it has been shown by Boxing and others you don't have any idea what you are talking about. You quote sources that you don't understand.

If you advocate the 'gradual heat death of the universe,' what happens is the energy of the universe is reduced to zero-point vacuum quantum state. The energy is still there, but it reduced to the lowest point of entropy at absolute zero, and time no longer exists.

[shunyadragon]

Most if no all contemporary apologist arguments for the existence of God originated with Thomas Aquinas, based on a foundation of Aristotle's logic. All are flawed in a similar was as the argument for an 'Efficient Cause' for everything making priori assumptions for the existence of God.

All the arguments for the necessity of Design and a Designer like wise originate from Thomas Aquinas.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

© Copyright Original Source

The lack of scientific knowledge and explanations for the nature of our physical existence and life made this argument very convincing at the time of Thomas Aquinas. The logical conclusion without a possible natural explanation was that the nature of the natural world required an intelligent source. The weakness of the argument remains in the arguments for Design today is that the a priori assumption that our physical existence requires a Design and therefore a Designer, most definitely a 'circular argument,' and an 'argument from ignorance.'

Modern Design arguments proposed the problems of the complexity of life and the claim of the lack of a scientific explanation for this complexity as the criteria for the necessity of Design and a Designer. The Discovery Institute and some other Christian scientist pursued the goal of finding a scientific basis for the necessity of Design for the complexity of Design.

First, the problems they faced were that none have been able to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis that the complexity of life leads to the conclusion that Design is a necessary conclusion.

Second, they were faced with the fallacy of the appeal to ignorance, assuming that the lack of an explanation leads to the conclusion that there is not a possible explanation for particular examples of complexity.

As the knowledge of science advances the argument for the existence of God by the necessity of Design is fading with the Discovery Institute offering only futile nostalgic claims of vain hope for a scientific basis for Design.

[Leonhard]

Shunya commenting on St. Thomas Aquinas. He doesn't understand modern physics, so he's going to have an even harder time tangling with the great master of philosophy.

[Leonhard]

The argument, which I do not consider valid, by the way, does not assume the existence of God, but rather the 'idea' of such a being, namely an uncaused being. The flaw in the argument, from a modern perspective, is the premise that there cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. In principle, if I remember correctly, Thomas does admit that from a rational perspective alone, that the contingent/created world could have existed, nonetheless as created, from eternity, but he thinks this is contradicted by revelation, so it is a nonstarter as far as he is concerned. Insofar as Thomas accepts revelation, one can claim that Thomas' ultimate conclusions are circular in that sense, but it was not his intent to prove revelation apart from revelation, merely to incorporate Aristotelian reasoning as far as far he could.

This is actually a common mistake that many have when they approach the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, with regards to the claim of the chain of efficient causes not being infinite. By this he is not claiming that the past was finite. That's a very modern interpretation of his writings. When it came to natural arguments for a finite past, Aquinas was an agnostic. He didn't think it was possible to demonstrate from natural observations whether the past was finite.

He makes an important distinction between essential causes and accidental causes. Accidental here, does not mean and 'oops I dropped the milk' accident. It means a chain of cause and effect as we see them in history, where each cause temporaly precedes the effect. When he said you couldn't have an infinite chain, he was was talking about essential causes, not accidental causes. These are very different, and if you understand what they are, then its very clear that they do have to have a First Cause, otherwise nothing would be in motion.

So you misunderstood the argument. I might step in at one point to explain this difference, but its easy to look up. These days I'm suffering through depression.

[Leonhard]

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.

A chair is more than energy and matter. If I melt it, a puddle of plastic and fibers results. And a puddle of plastic and fibers is not a chair. Their forms are not the same. Though you might be willing to bite the bullet and admit that there's no qualitative difference between a chair and a molten puddle, but that's quite a bullet to bite.

At any rate basic observation defeats this idea.

[robrecht]

This is actually a common mistake that many have when they approach the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, with regards to the claim of the chain of efficient causes not being infinite. By this he is not claiming that the past was finite. That's a very modern interpretation of his writings. When it came to natural arguments for a finite past, Aquinas was an agnostic. He didn't think it was possible to demonstrate from natural observations whether the past was finite.

He makes an important distinction between essential causes and accidental causes. Accidental here, does not mean and 'oops I dropped the milk' accident. It means a chain of cause and effect as we see them in history, where each cause temporaly precedes the effect. When he said you couldn't have an infinite chain, he was was talking about essential causes, not accidental causes. These are very different, and if you understand what they are, then its very clear that they do have to have a First Cause, otherwise nothing would be in motion.

So you misunderstood the argument. I might step in at one point to explain this difference, but its easy to look up. These days I'm suffering through depression.

Sorry to hear about your struggles with depression. Do not despair. All creation is fundamentally good.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I agree with you that Thomas did not claim to know through reason that the past was finite. He only accepts this from his understanding of revelation. I thought I was clear about that, but perhaps not.

[Leonhard]

The mistaken assumption here I think is that the things that come into existence are things in themselves rather than being parts of a whole. Being a part of a whole, a thing is temporal only with respect to itself, as if it were a thing in itself, but with respect to the whole, the thing, being understood as a part of the whole, is eternal, because in substance it still exists.

This would be monism if it wasn't pure sophomoric goobledegook you'd pick up in a lot of bars around campus.

Your answer falls into one of two wrong camps, both of which predate Socrates, and were both considered wrong by that time. On your side you'd have Parmeneides, who denied that substances changed, ever, that all motion was an illusion. If your eyes told you differently, well, then your eyes were deceiving you. He reasoned this from the impossibility of something coming from nothing. A bird moving from one place to another, would essentially mean that the bird had ceased to exit in one place, and come into existence in another place. Since this was impossible, then contra the senses, he was forced to conclude that nothing moved. As a correlary it follows that there's no distinction between anything, all is one great substance, threads in a big mesh.

On the other side you have Heraclitus arguing for constant change everywhere. His view was entirely atomistic and dynamic. You couldn't step down in the same river twice. Everything is motion, change, and there's nothing static. You can't even sensibly talk about Heraclitus as that's a moving target. No unity, all change.

Both were right and both were wrong. One couldn't deny what the eyes told you, change existed. Yet there also seemed to be static forms. We can talk about Heraclitus, even if he undergoes change. There's permanence, even though there's change.

That was the problem to be dealt with. Either you deal with it or you don't, and pretend that any philosophy that came later never happened, and think yourself ahead of the game because of it. Or you realize this is a serious problem to deal with.

Then came Aristotle, who solved it. It requires a metaphysics more complex than what either Heraclitus or Parmeneides suggested, but no more than needed. One thing that was needed was a distinction between actuality and potentiality.

Now something that actually exist that comes into existence, exists because of something else that exists. This is a problem. Because why then would anything exist at all? Saying A exists, because B exists. Doesn't answer the question, if B itself is the type of thing that needs something else that exists. We can't put it into a ring. And we can't make an infinite chain of existence granters, since that wouldn't answer the question why that chain exists either, it itself would require a cause of its existence, since it could possible not have been.

There is one and only one solution to this problem. There exists something that is purely actual. Without any potentiality at all. Something that simple exists.

Everything else owes its existence to this existing thing.

Et hoc dicimus Deum. -, St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

[Leonhard]

Sorry to hear about your struggles with depression. Do not despair. All creation is fundamentally good.

I think you may have misunderstood my post. I agree with you that Thomas did not claim to know through reason that the past was finite. He only accepts this from his understanding of revelation. I thought I was clear about that, but perhaps not.

He also doesn't use the idea that the past was finite, as a premise in anyway. And thanks I'm very slowly getting better.