Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[chimp3]

These are questions that you're going to have to ask yourself..and..particularly, whether or not you might have smuggled a word or two in.  

I cant give you a satisfying answer to why you'v gone off the rails.  I can only point out that you have, in fact, done so.

So you want me to have faith that you are correct?

---

Cool.  So god is Fluffy, the Cosmic Space Whale who farted the universe into existence.  Fluffy has always existed, and always will.

K.

---

I will continue to respond in my own way to your posts. However, I am not your google daddy. Do your own searches.

I did google refutations of thomism and found very few arguments. So I have come here to see if actual atheists might, as I said in the original post, point me towards other arguments.

I would argue that Aquinas is archaic and no longer of interest to most humans, let alone atheists. Perhaps that explains the dearth of arguments.

[KevinM1]

Here's the thing: at best, Aquinas argues for a god.  But even then, it's not a really great argument.

The 4th way, for example, is about the nature of degrees.  That, in order to be able to use qualitative statements, there must be some ultimate standard with which to compare to.  So, there's some epitome of chocolate pudding, some paragon of a circle, etc.  And for the quality of goodness, that thing which is its epitome is god.

But, why isn't the epitome of evil also god?  And, aren't a lot of qualities - including good and evil - subjective?  Yes, a circle has an area of pi*(r*r), but what is the perfect value of r?  What is the perfect line thickness/boundary for this circle?  Or color of the stroke?  Is abortion always evil?  What if the fetus is guaranteed to die shortly after birth?  What about in the case of rape?  Is allowing LGBT people equal protections and privileges under the law harmful?  What about the treatment of slaves?  Or adulterers?

The 5th way seems to be about deriving purpose, and thus intelligence, from results.  The purpose of an acorn is to grow into an oak tree, not sea lion.  But what about emergent phenomena?  Why must intention be the cause of movement?  There are non-sentient causes all over the place... why must the first be different?

[brewer]

You can't philosophize/argue a god into existence.

You are correct. However you could show that one already existed.

Nope. If that were correct then Superman exists based on the same arguments. You can argue a belief, not existence.

[Mystic]

The best arguments are the ones God repeats the most in his holy books.

[The Grand Nudger]

As we all know, repetition makes something more truthy every time you repeat it.  

If you did it five times a day, you'd just know it was truthier than anybody else's bullshit.   

Lay off the bath salts.  MMMMkay?

[Mystic]

It's funny how the best arguments are in the sacred books but most humans even their followers cannot perceive them. That speaks volumes in itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it might just indicate that you need a bigger pile of books to read, Mystic. You're still obsessed as to who should have succeeded whom 1400 years ago in a country that no longer exists.........plenty of good books have been written in the interim, much better reads..in case you were unaware.

Are you familiar with the Berenstain Bears?

[brewer]

It's funny how the best arguments are in the sacred books but most humans even their followers cannot perceive them. That speaks volumes in itself.

I've read one of the books twice, and glanced at the others. What you interpret as "best arguments" I interpret as "total nonsense". Volumes of total nonsense.

[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.

[Minimalist]

It's funny how the best arguments are in the sacred books but most humans even their followers cannot perceive them. That speaks volumes in itself.

You are far more impressed than we are, MK.  But then, there is nothing new in that, is there?