Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 26, 2015 at 12:26 pm (This post was last modified: September 26, 2015 at 12:53 pm by robvalue.)
I thought I'd get this monkey off my back! My ramblings are in bold.
I've just highlighted some of the logical fallacies, enough to show these simply don't work. There's plenty more inherently wrong with the arguments as well that I needn't bother highlighting. I think this should put it to bed, anyone else is welcome to discuss.
My analysis of Aquinas 5 ways (5 ways taken from here)
General objection: Completely dishonest use of the label "god" in not just one but all five ways. This is clearly to try and sneak in an intelligence in the cases where none has been demonstrated; and also to assume all these five things are the same thing. Completely unjustified.
The First Way: Argument from Motion
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
Therefore nothing can move itself.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. Criteria.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite sequence.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Special pleading. This violates the above criteria.
The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite chain of causes going into the past.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
If I pretend the above argument makes sense, all that has been shown is that some "beings", whatever that means, have always existed. It's not been narrowed down to just one being, nor has it been shown there are any contingent beings to be "brought into existence", whatever that means. If bringing into existence simply means some things forming into other things, rather than appearing out of nowhere, then I'd hardly call this being contingent or coming into existence.
The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
This is meaningless. Better or worse in what way? Who gets to decide?
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Non sequitur. Even pretending the initial premise makes sense, this is just announcing a conclusion.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
No. Even if both of the above made sense, it's not been shown that one thing happens to be the maximum in every category.
The Fifth Way: Argument from Design
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
A "goal" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Stating it's not happening "by chance" is an argument from incredulity, if not just a flat out unsupported assertion. There's a difference between chance and natural processes, too.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
Things without intelligence don't have their own goals, they are arbitrarily and subjectively assigned goals by intelligences.
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Doesn't follow or even make sense. This is just fantasy, and labeling whatever happens as part of some "end".
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Congratulations, you have successfully refuted five arguments the Angelic Doctor never made. Modern skeptics tend to ignore the philosophical background against which the arguments are set and misinterpret the technical nomenclature used by the Schoolmen. So it is entirely understandable that you would overlook their profound depth and subtlety. You apparently believe that any theology you do not understand must be false. Unfortunately, I do not even know where to begin any effort to correct your profound ignorance.
(September 28, 2015 at 10:43 am)ChadWooters Wrote: [...] Unfortunately, I do not even know where to begin any effort to correct your profound ignorance.
Well, let me tell you then - begin with "correcting" your own profound ignorance of reality and science. Then you can tell us all about the fairies and the gnomes and the gods. It would immensely help your cause, if at least some of you christians were not utter morons.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
September 30, 2015 at 4:21 am (This post was last modified: September 30, 2015 at 4:28 am by robvalue.)
(September 21, 2015 at 6:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote:
(September 21, 2015 at 3:19 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't particularly understand what this is saying, but you seem to just announce "objective morality exists" halfway through.
I don't know what objective morality is supposed to be, in what way it "exists", or why it requires anything to perceive it. You seem to be saying objectively morality is like some law of the universe like gravity.
That's ok if you don't know what objective morality is. I believe it God's Name/face/light in creation and it's absolute existence is God himself. But I'm not assuming these things to be true for the argument or else it would be circular.
Like I said before, if you believe one subjective view of a certain moral issue is superior to another morally and ethically, then you believe in objective morality. No if you believe there is any goodness in any action that is real and genuine, you believe in objective morality.
Objective morality doesn't have to mean "the most perfect act to do in a moment", just that in a moment, an action is truly good given the intention and perception of the individual.
"This perception" and "hearing" is that of a genuine true force, a true power, in the soul, that is from the light of God.
I don't understand paragraph 4 at all. You're trying to justify why there must be someone to perceive objective morality by referring to souls and God, which have not been established.
In paragraph 3, it seems you are saying that if someone intends to do good, then they have acted morally, from their point of view. I would agree that this is the starting point of defining morality in the first place. Is that what you are saying? So that means that different people doing exactly the same action may be considered moral or immoral, even by the same independent third party. Hence not objective to the action itself. What people perceive as "good", and what is "actually good", if such a thing makes any sense at all (I don't believe it does) are not the same thing. You're just describing what I would call subjective morality. It depends on the person, it depends on intent, it depends on their knowledge and perception. None of this is objective.
So I would conclude that you believe in what I would call subjective morality, but you call it objective morality. If this is the case, it's absolutely fine. You can call things whatever you want.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
October 1, 2015 at 8:04 pm (This post was last modified: October 1, 2015 at 8:06 pm by Mystic.)
What I'm suggesting is given a person has this amount of knowledge or experience or is in a certain state, he is expected to come up with a certain type of judgement and perception. Sometimes that judgement can be off, but without any objective reality of morality, then in general different relative morality would not be better then another as far as being morally better (some obviously will have better outputs in some areas of life).
For example if a person believed there is no such thing as right or wrong, I believe it would still be "evil" for him to kill people and think it's ok. It doesn't mean simply because a person believes something is ok, that it is ok.
Our judgement itself has an objective value and is objectively measured, that is why we think some moral views are better then others, even if not absolutely perfect.
That said, the argument simply relies on that the morality we are speaking about is not arbitrary.
So if you define relative morality as not totally arbitrary, but that even has some standards, then the argument would extend to relative morality, and say that cannot be created either. The fact it cannot be simply created shows it's eternal and in reality stems from an objective reality of morality.
If you say relative morality is arbitrary, then this how I understand it to be defined, but it would mean there is no true good action given any judgement or motive, it's simply made up in our heads through evolutionary feelings.
Honor, praise, greatness, goodness, all this would just be in our heads, with no real truth to them.
October 1, 2015 at 8:07 pm (This post was last modified: October 1, 2015 at 8:08 pm by Mystic.)
(October 1, 2015 at 8:05 pm)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote: Yeah, if you believe morals are relative you still give a shit about people. Sam Harris has an interesting take on this though.
Sure you can care about people, but if you don't, or care very little, you would not feel obligated to feel a certain way or act a certain way.
Anyways this is straying off topic. Which is there is such thing as "good" actions and "evil" actions, and that such actions are not arbitrarily defined.
