Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[polymath257]

More elaboration on the problems with Aquinas' Aristotelianism would be appreciated. What in particular do you find problematic with Aristotle? Do you know any books/articles/ etc. that develop the point more in-depth? 

Argumentwise, I guess a good reply to arguments from change or contingency would be preferable.

Well, for one, Aristotle thought that any movement (which he regarded as any change at all) requires a force. We now know that isn't true: motion thorugh space doesn't require a force--a *change* of direction or speed does.

As for contingency, a unicorn isn't something that 'possibly exists' but simply fails to do so. It is something that *doesn't* exist. There is no modifier on existence. Something either exists or not. It isn't 'possible' or 'contingent' or 'absolute'.

So those are two *huge* problems with Thomism and Aristotelianism.

Now, we can go further into the Aristotelian concepts of causality, which are pretty incoherent (form is not a cause, no causes go backwards in time). And it is *completely* lacking any proper definition of the notion of causality. So the whole 'first cause' argument has deep, deep problems.

---

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

For the actual argument, it is basically:

1. Change involves a potential being actualized
2. A potential must be actualized by something already actual
3. Some things do not exist necessarily and require their potential for existence to be actualized
4. If the thing doing this actualizing has potentials, it would also require another actual thing to actualize it
5. Therefore the chain of actualization must conclude in some purely actual thing
6. Since this thing would be  purely actual it would be unchanging and eternal
7. There could only be one such being as there would be no unactualized potentials to differentiate one such being from another
8. Since it caused all non purely actual things it would be omnipotent
9. (EDIT Forgot to include.) Since all non purely actual things, including intelligent beings, came from this Pure Actuality, it would neccessarily be both intelligent, since a cause cannot give something it does not at least possess virtually, and all knowing since the attributes of all things flow from it
10. And that is basically the monotheistic God

This is very bare bones. The article I linked presents an alternative argument that gets to the same conclusion. If you are worried about bugs just Google "Edward Feser Avicenna" and it should be the first to come up.

I'd also like to note that I would prefer direction to good atheist books, articles, or arguments. Debating this in a forum is not ideal but I am open to it if no one has read anything that would work.

1. No, change is just that: change. It isn't a 'potential' that is 'actualized', it is simply a change.
2. Verbal salad. Again, dividing into potential and actual is a HUGE part of the problem here. It is a false dichotomy.
3. again, the division between potential existence and actual existence is a basic mistake. Things either exist or they do not. A non-existent thing doens't have properties like potentiality.
4. is mainly a repeat.
5. No argument is made that the chain has to terminate or that it has to terminate on a single entity.
6. This is an assumption and is not substantiated.
7. But there may be other properties (not potentials) in which they differ
8. Again, an assumption not demonstrated.
9. There are many causes that do not have their effects in them.
10. Definitional?

So, at each and every stage, there is a *basic* mistake. Not even good for getting off the ground.