(August 12, 2020 at 9:46 pm)brewer Wrote:

(August 12, 2020 at 9:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

A logical argument must be judged on the basis of its logic. Disliking the motivation of the man who wrote it says nothing about the argument itself.

You could argue circumstantial ad hom, but circumstantial's are not necessarily fallacious. In this case probably not because he was a member of the church and had an agenda/motivation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

I said he manufactured an argument for the existence of god. Adding god was not logical, making god the first cause without knowing is an argument from ignorance.

I judge his conclusion of "therefore god" only logical within the context of religion.

So you're not going to address the logical validity of the argument itself.

(August 12, 2020 at 9:05 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Thomas believed in the Christian God. He knew that the first cause argument was not sufficient to prove anything other than a first cause. Everything else about the Christian God must be argued with different arguments. 

Suppose a non-Christian argued that there must be one non-contingent thing which is essentially prior to all contingent things, and he calls this essential thing "the thing that's essentially prior." But he hates Christianity and rejects the term "God." Would you accept this man's argument that all contingent things exist in contingency to existence itself?

That's what we're talking about.

Aren't you the one who drug Aquinas into this? (post #24) And now you're back peddling?

To say there is a first cause is open to debate. To say that first cause is god without other evidence makes a flawed argument except within the context of religion. 

Nott his man, Aquinas. If he meant it only indicated "first cause" or only "contingent existence" why did he proceed to first cause ..... god? Or are you saying that he didn't make the god connection?

And this tread started with the title, Creationism. The whole thing is about religion, what Creationism is and is not.

---

(August 12, 2020 at 9:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 12, 2020 at 9:46 pm)brewer Wrote: You could argue circumstantial ad hom, but circumstantial's are not necessarily fallacious. In this case probably not because he was a member of the church and had an agenda/motivation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

I said he manufactured an argument for the existence of god. Adding god was not logical, making god the first cause without knowing is an argument from ignorance.

I judge his conclusion of "therefore god" only logical within the context of religion.

So you're not going to address the logical validity of the argument itself.

I all ready did. The logic fails when Aquinas adds god.

(August 12, 2020 at 10:06 pm)brewer Wrote: Aren't you the one who drug Aquinas into this? (post #24) And now you're back peddling?

This is the Aristotelian/Thomist first cause argument. 

It was around for a long time before Thomas. It was around for a long time before there was Christianity. 

It does not depend on, or address, the Christian version of God.

Quote:To say there is a first cause is open to debate. 

That's certainly true. I was hoping you would get around to addressing it at some point.

Quote:To say that first cause is god without other evidence makes a flawed argument except within the context of religion. 

Yes, I've said that several times. The first cause argument only argues for a first cause. To show that this first cause deserves to be called God requires other arguments. 

Quote:Not his man, Aquinas. 

I don't understand what you mean by "his man." 

It is perfectly possible to believe in a first cause, per the argument given, and say that this is not the Christian God. 

Quote:If he meant it only indicated "first cause" or only "contingent existence" why did he proceed to first cause ..... god? Or are you saying that he didn't make the god connection?

Thomas made that connection, by adding lots of other arguments. Other people say that the first cause argument is solid, but not the ones adding the Christian God. 

Quote:And this tread started with the title, Creationism. The whole thing is about religion, what Creationism is and is not.

In the OP, Eleven, (who has gone silent now) referred to a mistaken version of the first cause argument, which is often cited by people who don't know what they're talking about. I told him that the real argument is different. 

I agree that what creation is and isn't is a valid topic, and would be of interest if anyone wanted to discuss it. 

Quote:

---

(August 12, 2020 at 9:52 pm)Belacqua Wrote: So you're not going to address the logical validity of the argument itself.

I all ready did. The logic fails when Aquinas adds god.

Thomas makes the first cause argument, and then he says at the end "and this is what we call God." That's his name for the first cause. If you'd like to call it something else that would be fine, but it seems you are focussed on associations that Thomas made, and not the argument itself. 

Do all contingent things depend on a non-contingent thing? That's the argument. But it appears you don't want to talk about that. 

Anyway, I'll drop it here. You are talking about anything other than contingency and necessity, which is what the argument addresses.

The man who leaves it at first cause will at least have avoided the invalid god declaration. Doesn't matter whether anyone will accept it, or why (or why not). Good job stuffing some good ole godhating in there, though. Funny thing, doesn't matter if that's why he chose to stay within the logical remit of his argument, either. The fact that matters is that he did, and saint tom did not.

It's perfectly possible to believe in a first cause and not believe that it is any god, let alone the christian god. The associations that saint tom made -were- his argument, that's what arguments are. You're coming undone Bel.

(August 12, 2020 at 10:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote: This is the Aristotelian/Thomist first cause argument. 

It was around for a long time before Thomas. It was around for a long time before there was Christianity. 

It does not depend on, or address, the Christian version of God.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Thomas makes the first cause argument, and then he says at the end "and this is what we call God." That's his name for the first cause. If you'd like to call it something else that would be fine, but it seems you are focussed on associations that Thomas made, and not the argument itself. 

Do all contingent things depend on a non-contingent thing? That's the argument. But it appears you don't want to talk about that. 

Anyway, I'll drop it here. You are talking about anything other than contingency and necessity, which is what the argument addresses.

It should not make reference to any god, christian or not. That's the whole point.

Bold: And there is the problem. Who are the "he/we" referred to? He is religious/christian/catholic and he calls the first cause God. A god that had previously been defined by his religion prior to him championing first cause argument. The god baggage pre-existed. Stop being intentionally naive.

I've already posted a link to the arguments against first cause. Talking about contingency and necessity is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. You're right, I won't indulge in your philosophical mental masturbation that accomplishes nothing.

(August 12, 2020 at 9:50 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: He did think that his argument could prove something other than a first cause.  He thought it proved a god.  It didn't.

I could hold up a cat and say the magic words "and this we understand to be god" - and there can be no doubt that I've demonstrated the cat, but that still won't make that magic statement true.  It's false even on it's own contrived terms.  What tom concluded didn't follow, and wasn't actually what he, let alone we, understood to be god at all.  He understood god to be christ.  There's no escaping this fact of his thoughts or his argument, and it's why his argument isn't the successful argument.   He fucked it up.  Smart guys make mistakes, and this was just one of his many.

Set aside the fact that Aquinas was a Christian, and regardless of his motivations, the arguments in and of themselves could be said to lead to the existence of some First Cause/Unmoved Mover/Ultimately Necessary Being/Being/Pure Act/whatever. Maybe they're still not successful arguments, but there's no inserting the Trinity God going on here anyway (even if that's what Aquinas believed in).

And a cat (???), by the way, is a contingent being with potentiality and is not pure act, so this cat argument wouldn't have been a challenge for Aquinas.

(August 10, 2020 at 5:22 pm)Belacqua Wrote: No one claims that a first cause argument gets you to the God of the Bible.

And I'm the Queen of Sheba. You should be embarrassed for telling such a blatant lie.

---

(August 12, 2020 at 8:51 pm)Grandizer Wrote:

(August 12, 2020 at 8:42 pm)brewer Wrote: Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

Using the word "insert" isn't fair here. Aquinas' arguments lead to the conclusion that the ground of existence exists, and he believed that is equivalent to the God that he believed in. But he didn't shoehorn God in, it's concluded, not asserted.

It was concluded based on no evidence, therefore it was aserted. There were plenty of people in Aquinas' day who pinged him for that.

(August 12, 2020 at 11:33 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Set aside the fact that Aquinas was a Christian, and regardless of his motivations, the arguments in and of themselves could be said to lead to the existence of some First Cause/Unmoved Mover/Ultimately Necessary Being/Being/Pure Act/whatever. Maybe they're still not successful arguments, but there's no inserting the Trinity God going on here anyway (even if that's what Aquinas believed in).

Not a necessary being.  There's no argument for the first cause being a being, there.  Big part of why it fails as an argument for a god.   I disagree about whether or not saint tom inserted his triune god.  He absolutely did, that's exactly what you asked me to forget here at the outset....but the problem is that he inserted -any- god.  It's a problem, because he didn't argue for a god. 

He argued for a cat, and concluded a god.

Quote:And a cat (???), by the way, is a contingent being with potentiality and is not pure act, so this cat argument wouldn't have been a challenge for Aquinas.

 I say that we all understand pure act to be a cat. Tommy couldn't answer this criticism in his own time. He knew he fucked up, too.

(August 13, 2020 at 5:01 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(August 12, 2020 at 11:33 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Set aside the fact that Aquinas was a Christian, and regardless of his motivations, the arguments in and of themselves could be said to lead to the existence of some First Cause/Unmoved Mover/Ultimately Necessary Being/Being/Pure Act/whatever. Maybe they're still not successful arguments, but there's no inserting the Trinity God going on here anyway (even if that's what Aquinas believed in).

Not a necessary being.  There's no argument for the first cause being a being, there.  Big part of why it fails as an argument for a god.   I disagree about whether or not saint tom inserted his triune god.  He absolutely did, that's exactly what you asked me to forget here at the outset....but the problem is that he inserted -any- god.  It's a problem, because he didn't argue for a god. 

He argued for a cat, and concluded a god.

Quote:And a cat (???), by the way, is a contingent being with potentiality and is not pure act, so this cat argument wouldn't have been a challenge for Aquinas.

 I say that we all understand pure act to be a cat.  Tommy couldn't answer this criticism in his own time.  He knew he fucked up, too.

Per Aquinas, the First Cause isn't a being, but THE Being/existence. A cat is a being and has potency, so cannot therefore be pure act. If you are saying this just to be humorous, whatever. But otherwise, it reveals a misunderstanding of his metaphysics. For his arguments to work, one does have to establish Aristotelian metaphysics as true. But aside from that, without needing to presume Trinity or anything to do with the Christian god specifically, the arguments seem valid and will take some work to counter rather than resorting to kneejerk/sarcastic responses.

And again, it's irrelevant if Aquinas intended for these arguments to serve as starting points towards proving the Trinity. Aristotle (if he was able to time travel to Aquinas' time) could've had a look at these arguments, be convinced of their conclusions, and not ever feel the need to convert to Christianity.

He'd have to have made an argument that it's -a- being, before he could validly conclude as much, just as he would have had to make an argument for it being -a god- before he could validly conclude as much.

He didn't. The argument simply smuggles being-ness as a component of the god-ness it also smuggled in at the end. Proved a cat, concluded a god.

This is what makes the argument invalid. The god conclusion does not follow, logically, from anything that preceded it.

Turns out the premises may be unsound as well, but it hardly matters, since the truth of the premises can't certify the truth of the conclusion. There's fairly broad agreement and centuries of study as to which, if any, of the god arguments are successful. Toms isn't one of them. None of the cosmological arguments are. They each commit a raft of errors, and the one mentioned above isn't the only error in toms version. It's not possible to launch any cosmological argument that doesn't run afoul of composition. Toms fuckup was just adding his own flavor of illogic to a fundamentally illogical type of argument.