RE: Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion
November 19, 2015 at 2:58 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 3:04 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
To avoid a word wall, I have elected to hide much of the content yet avoid the accusation that I have maliciously edited your writing. While it may seem a waste, a thorough reply requires me to address our exchange in the most comprehensive fashion.
Here is how I understand your points: 1) I say those who disagree with me have darkened intellects, 2) I presuppose I can never be wrong, 3) I malign you so that others will agree without considering my arguments, and 4) I must think either my jabs will convince others or make them to feel better.
Reply to 1) – I believe that with respect to the proposition “God exists”, atheists such as yourself do not earnestly seek to know the truth. I think that not because simply because they disagree with me per se but because the 5W are sound and well supported arguments. I think therefore that the failure to accept them must be something other than rational evaluation. Despite having been shown how to understand the 5W consistent with the informed opinions of Aquinas scholars*, many atheists continue to reiterate objections to arguments Aquinas never made. If such atheists truly sought to know, they would present serious and relevant objects instead of being satisfied with irrelevant objections such as the following:
If things cannot move by themselves then God also requires a mover. (No premise of the First Way says that everything is in motion.)
The universe can exist from eternity with no need for a first cause. (The Second Way refers to an essentially ordered sequence and not an accidentally ordered one.)
The physical universe satisfies as the necessary being. (No compound of merely possible parts could exist necessarily.)
If God is perfect in all ways then He is also perfectly evil. (Not understanding that imperfection is privation and evil is the lack of the good that ought to be there.)
Evolutionary theory refutes the Fifth Way. (The Fifth Way is not a modern intelligent design argument.)
There is no observable phenomena support the Five Ways. (The demonstrations of the Five Ways are based on everyday observable effects common to all sensible things.)
Even if the proofs were valid they would not reveal a specifically Christian god. (The link is revealed in Exodus 3:14 which succinctly describes the perfect union of His Divine Existence and Essense as “I AM WHO I AM” and Jesus used that reference to Himself in John 8:56-59)
*…such as Dr. Edward Feser, James Brent, Gavin Kerr, Dr. Candace Volger, Peter Kreeft, and others. I have personally interacted with some of these to confirm my understanding of Thomistic philosophy. I am by no means an expert; I only stand on the shoulders of giants.
Reply to 2) – First, experience should have taught you otherwise. In some threads I admitted to being wrong. Second, were I so certain of my infallibility, I would never have challenged my previous atheism and would have remained one.
Reply to 3 & 4) – I try to keep the debates lively and playful; taunts and jabs are par for the course on AF and I am willing to go along with forum culture. However, I have not done so here without an accompanying argument or pointing back to one.
About empirical data and a priori knowledge:
Here is how I understand your points: 1) a priori knowledge needs to be tested with empirical evidence, 2) consistency with experience is the test for all truth claims about reality, 3) rational reflection cannot determine the truth of a priori knowledge, 4) “Every single big discovery that was true, was made and confirmed by empirical evidence, not just thinking about it really hard,” 5) if a claim about reality is true there will be empirical evidence to support it, 6) natural science has proved Aquinas wrong about many things, and 7) “You're literally saying that reality must be wrong because you've gotta be right.”
Reply to 1) – No some a priori truths are self-evident. http://atheistforums.org/thread-38331-po...pid1109685
Reply to 2) – In the Summa Theologica, Question 1, Article 9, Aquinas clearly states “Now it is natural to man to attain intellectual truths through [experience with] sensible things because all our knowledge originates from sense.” That idea is what informs the Five Ways found in Question 2 and would already be known to his readers anyway. The Five Ways are all cosmological arguments. The demonstrations follow from known effects and could be falsified if any contrary observable effect was found.
Reply to 3) – Rational reflection cannot determine the truth of a priori knowledge because rational reflection would be impossible without it.
Reply to 4 & 5) –Observing effects allows us to deduce the causes of those effects. This is true in the natural sciences and it is true of the process used by Aquinas. He applies reason to experience. He looks at the world of sensible things and draws conclusions about the nature of their causes.
Reply 6) – True, but only about his examples and analogies. No discovery of natural science has ever run contrary to the substance of the arguments themselves.
Reply to 7)- All the conclusions of the Five Ways follow from observations of reality and none of them have been contradicted by an observed phenomena. If you think otherwise I challenge you to name a single phenomenon that definitively rules out the possibility of any of the following: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, or Guiding Intelligence.
Style of Argumentation:
Here is how I understood the above: 1) Dr. Feser’s style of argumentation is empty grandstanding with no substance and 2) I presume that people disagree with me only because they do not understand me.
Reply to 1) – So you say.
Reply to 2) See above.
Accusations repeated:
Here is how I understand the above points: 1) you responded to all my points, 2) I gave up, 3) my objections to your replies are not substantive, 4) I’m poisoning the well again, again.
Reply to 1) – Maybe you did, but that doesn’t make them valid.
Reply to 2) – At the time I saw little point in continuing with you (and wonder why I still do.) If you truly sought to know, then you would confront the actual substance of the Five Ways and not repeat the same irrelevant objections that everyone uses and that I listed above.
Reply to 3) I do not attribute your attitude to supernatural influences any more than everyone else is.
Reply to 4) – If I did quote mine it was only by mistake. Notice how I take great care to include the entire text in this post because you make that argument when it is convenient for you to do so. I’m not poisoning the well for anyone except you. I truly believe you are clinging to falsities because your personal identity is wrapped up with being an atheist.
I said what I believe to be true. That is the definition of honest. I said not everyone wants to be convinced. That is true. You apparently also believe that because you accuse me of presupposing that I can never be wrong. My second statement is also true. On another thread I asked if finding the words “Made by Jesus” engraved on every living cell would be sufficient evidence? Someone replied No, because it could have been put there by an advanced race of mischievous aliens.
The following is simply too good to hide any portion:
That is the most illogical thing you have ever said. Anything you can find obviously ‘exists’ and it cannot be said to ‘not exist.’
Anyways, I’ve already invested too much time in this thread. If you want to accuse me of avoiding your remaining points, you have that right. But I think anyone can see that I’ve given you more than enough time already.
Here is how I understand your points: 1) I say those who disagree with me have darkened intellects, 2) I presuppose I can never be wrong, 3) I malign you so that others will agree without considering my arguments, and 4) I must think either my jabs will convince others or make them to feel better.
Reply to 1) – I believe that with respect to the proposition “God exists”, atheists such as yourself do not earnestly seek to know the truth. I think that not because simply because they disagree with me per se but because the 5W are sound and well supported arguments. I think therefore that the failure to accept them must be something other than rational evaluation. Despite having been shown how to understand the 5W consistent with the informed opinions of Aquinas scholars*, many atheists continue to reiterate objections to arguments Aquinas never made. If such atheists truly sought to know, they would present serious and relevant objects instead of being satisfied with irrelevant objections such as the following:
If things cannot move by themselves then God also requires a mover. (No premise of the First Way says that everything is in motion.)
The universe can exist from eternity with no need for a first cause. (The Second Way refers to an essentially ordered sequence and not an accidentally ordered one.)
The physical universe satisfies as the necessary being. (No compound of merely possible parts could exist necessarily.)
If God is perfect in all ways then He is also perfectly evil. (Not understanding that imperfection is privation and evil is the lack of the good that ought to be there.)
Evolutionary theory refutes the Fifth Way. (The Fifth Way is not a modern intelligent design argument.)
There is no observable phenomena support the Five Ways. (The demonstrations of the Five Ways are based on everyday observable effects common to all sensible things.)
Even if the proofs were valid they would not reveal a specifically Christian god. (The link is revealed in Exodus 3:14 which succinctly describes the perfect union of His Divine Existence and Essense as “I AM WHO I AM” and Jesus used that reference to Himself in John 8:56-59)
*…such as Dr. Edward Feser, James Brent, Gavin Kerr, Dr. Candace Volger, Peter Kreeft, and others. I have personally interacted with some of these to confirm my understanding of Thomistic philosophy. I am by no means an expert; I only stand on the shoulders of giants.
Reply to 2) – First, experience should have taught you otherwise. In some threads I admitted to being wrong. Second, were I so certain of my infallibility, I would never have challenged my previous atheism and would have remained one.
Reply to 3 & 4) – I try to keep the debates lively and playful; taunts and jabs are par for the course on AF and I am willing to go along with forum culture. However, I have not done so here without an accompanying argument or pointing back to one.
About empirical data and a priori knowledge:
Here is how I understand your points: 1) a priori knowledge needs to be tested with empirical evidence, 2) consistency with experience is the test for all truth claims about reality, 3) rational reflection cannot determine the truth of a priori knowledge, 4) “Every single big discovery that was true, was made and confirmed by empirical evidence, not just thinking about it really hard,” 5) if a claim about reality is true there will be empirical evidence to support it, 6) natural science has proved Aquinas wrong about many things, and 7) “You're literally saying that reality must be wrong because you've gotta be right.”
Reply to 1) – No some a priori truths are self-evident. http://atheistforums.org/thread-38331-po...pid1109685
Reply to 2) – In the Summa Theologica, Question 1, Article 9, Aquinas clearly states “Now it is natural to man to attain intellectual truths through [experience with] sensible things because all our knowledge originates from sense.” That idea is what informs the Five Ways found in Question 2 and would already be known to his readers anyway. The Five Ways are all cosmological arguments. The demonstrations follow from known effects and could be falsified if any contrary observable effect was found.
Reply to 3) – Rational reflection cannot determine the truth of a priori knowledge because rational reflection would be impossible without it.
Reply to 4 & 5) –Observing effects allows us to deduce the causes of those effects. This is true in the natural sciences and it is true of the process used by Aquinas. He applies reason to experience. He looks at the world of sensible things and draws conclusions about the nature of their causes.
Reply 6) – True, but only about his examples and analogies. No discovery of natural science has ever run contrary to the substance of the arguments themselves.
Reply to 7)- All the conclusions of the Five Ways follow from observations of reality and none of them have been contradicted by an observed phenomena. If you think otherwise I challenge you to name a single phenomenon that definitively rules out the possibility of any of the following: Unmoved Mover, First Cause, Necessary Being, or Guiding Intelligence.
Style of Argumentation:
Here is how I understood the above: 1) Dr. Feser’s style of argumentation is empty grandstanding with no substance and 2) I presume that people disagree with me only because they do not understand me.
Reply to 1) – So you say.
Reply to 2) See above.
Accusations repeated:
Here is how I understand the above points: 1) you responded to all my points, 2) I gave up, 3) my objections to your replies are not substantive, 4) I’m poisoning the well again, again.
Reply to 1) – Maybe you did, but that doesn’t make them valid.
Reply to 2) – At the time I saw little point in continuing with you (and wonder why I still do.) If you truly sought to know, then you would confront the actual substance of the Five Ways and not repeat the same irrelevant objections that everyone uses and that I listed above.
Reply to 3) I do not attribute your attitude to supernatural influences any more than everyone else is.
Reply to 4) – If I did quote mine it was only by mistake. Notice how I take great care to include the entire text in this post because you make that argument when it is convenient for you to do so. I’m not poisoning the well for anyone except you. I truly believe you are clinging to falsities because your personal identity is wrapped up with being an atheist.
(November 18, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Quote: I accept that not all will be convinced because not all can be convinced. For those who have confirmed in themselves an ardent disbelief no amount of evidence or rational demonstration will lead them to the truth.
See, this is exactly what I was talking about: you can't offer a substantial argument, so you're reduced to impugning the character and motivation of anybody who won't just take you at your word. Breathtakingly dishonest.
I said what I believe to be true. That is the definition of honest. I said not everyone wants to be convinced. That is true. You apparently also believe that because you accuse me of presupposing that I can never be wrong. My second statement is also true. On another thread I asked if finding the words “Made by Jesus” engraved on every living cell would be sufficient evidence? Someone replied No, because it could have been put there by an advanced race of mischievous aliens.
The following is simply too good to hide any portion:
(November 18, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Esquilax Wrote:Quote:Many of you have heard that before: arguments are not evidence. Since my initial reply fails to satisfy then I will call on a greater authority than myself. In Book 4, Chapter 3 of his Metaphysics, Aristotle presents the Principle of Non-Contradiction (a.k.a. the PNC) which states that nothing can be and not-be simultaneously and in all ways. The PNC shows conclusively that 1) human being have the capacity to know fundamental truths and 2) humans can have certain and true a priori knowledge that transcends sensory verification, i.e. it lies beyond empirical knowledge.... And if we found something tomorrow that both was and not-was at once, you know what'd happen to the PNC? It'd be rendered untrue.
That is the most illogical thing you have ever said. Anything you can find obviously ‘exists’ and it cannot be said to ‘not exist.’
Anyways, I’ve already invested too much time in this thread. If you want to accuse me of avoiding your remaining points, you have that right. But I think anyone can see that I’ve given you more than enough time already.
