Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[Succubus]

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.

It doesn’t work like that. Do you know of any good arguments for the existence of god?

And welcome to the forums.

---

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...

How does one refute; "I don't believe in gods"? Unless of course you have a very limited understanding of the term 'atheism'. Which is highly likely.

---

Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality. 

Philosophy our second. 

We know more now through science.

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

More or less, yes.

---

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

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

You have the floor.

[Whateverist]

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.

There are a few folks here that might be able to give you what you are looking for, probably Vulcanlogic for one.  I realize you really are looking for fodder for you blog but I for one would welcome your continued participation.  However, I'm not into debate.  I can however point out what I think are weak points in your argument.

5) Begs the question whether there was ever a prior state devoid of the potential to bring about the actualization of the current actuals, to put it in the terms you are using.  In my own words I would question whether there was ever a state of affairs not preceded by its necessary conditions, ever a true nothing devoid of any actualizing powers whatsoever?  Personally, I doubt it but am not so sure I -or we as a species- are in any position to determine the answer definitively.  You would say God fills the bill, but then how can you be sure "God" doesn't then represent just some early prenatal condition of energy/matter/space/time?  Why should the earliest potentiality involve anything animate let alone intentional or conscious?  I'm not feeling it.  Better just to concede that we cannot peer back that far to truly know.

6), 7), 8) and 9) presume more about the earlymost conditions than we are in any position to ascertain.

So you only get God out of the argument if you first put Him in there.  But like I said, I don't do debate.  These are merely the parts I find unpersuasive.

[Minimalist]

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, 1787

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. [The Age of Reason]

Thomas Paine

[Succubus]

How can an eternal, unchanging, all powerful, omnipotent being which can be the only one in existence be anything other than God? I genuinely do not understand your position. You seem to grant my argument, including the parts where I show it would have God's attributes, but then try to avoid the conclusion?

Textbook example of begging the question / circular reasoning fallacy.

[Whateverist]

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?

Just ask the Donald.

[Joods]

Welcome!

That's competition for you, young lady. 

Fire - welcome to AF! Can you please give us an introduction in the introductions sub forum? 

I have no ideal of what this Thomas philosophy is all about. I've honestly never heard of it.

[KevinM1]

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.

If they're imperceptible, how do you know they're there?

Or do you just so happen to be one of the lucky ones who can 'see' these arguments?

[The Grand Nudger]

Silly question.  One of the things that categorizes the devoutly afflicted, regardless of their disparate faiths, is the common presumption of privileged knowledge.

OFC he's special..he -has- seen the light, now hasn't he?

[GrandizerII]

Thomas Jefferson might have been interesting.  Thomas Paine would definitely have been interesting.

Aquinas is just another medieval clown who thinks "god" is the answer to everything.

Nice meeting you.

K.

---

Ah, right..so act and potency as relayed by aristotle.  I think it's totally legit.

Hail Zeus, yes?  Are you current on your temple tax to the oracle at delphi?

I don't think Zeus is a good fit for the First Cause that the idea of act and potency would entail. Do you or some other atheist have a good argument for how the First Cause (or Prime Mover) could be something other than God.

I don't believe in any First Cause or Prime Mover. I don't think anything was/is ultimately caused. Everything is just is. Causality and movement are a thing only when we analyze things from a temporal perspective.

[The Grand Nudger]

All well and good, but in the context of offering a rebuttal to Thomist theology, it doesn't actually matter whether there was a first mover or not.  One can grant a first mover and it will not necessarrily lead to Thomist theology..because a prime mover is just a prime mover.  You need the special sauce to get to a god, and another helping of even more special sauce to get to the christian god.  

Even thomists ought to know this, since aquinas wasn't the person to come up with the prime mover argument in the first place.  He was collating what he had from classical sources (read: pagan) and seeing if christian theology could be conceptualized in a new and growing field that we would one day call "science" - for him conceptualized as "natural theology". In effect, he wanted to see if christian superstition could be hammered to fit the mold of pagan philosophy...which he seemed to think was highly informative. Unfortunately he was more of a copyist than a great thinker...so he added absolutely nothing to the argument itself, leaving it in the state it's been in since it was first uttered.