RE: Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy
January 20, 2018 at 1:14 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2018 at 1:24 pm by GUBU.)
(January 19, 2018 at 6:39 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: Hello,
I am a devout Catholic with an interest in philosophy. I am posting here in an attempt to find good articles/books/blogs that challenge my personal views. I personally see Thomism, especially as put forward by philosophers like Edward Feser, as the best method of rationally establishing Theism. However, I would like to challenge my personal views and see what others think. Do any of you know of any good replies to the traditional arguments for the existence of God? Especially as argued by Edward Feser in his books and posts such as this (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/...gency.html) ?
Thank you for your time.
Start with Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, it's no philosophy book, but it does very good work on skewering the delusions of grandeur some humans have (especially the religious ones).
(January 19, 2018 at 7:41 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: 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.
That can be slimmed down further:
1) Everything that exists has property X
2) For everything to have property X there must exist a thing without property X to give them that property
3) ...
4) God exists QED.
3) is there to try and get past the fact that 2) violates 1). Every single one of the five ways depends of there a being without the property that Aquinas is adamant exists in every existing thing, which is a non-sequitur, which means that his arguments for god fall flat on their faces.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home