Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[polymath257]

After a lot of investigation, I am having trouble finding *one* thing that Thomist philosophy gets right.

[KevinM1]

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 see First Cause as a contradiction in terms.  "Cause" indicates the ability to take an action, but action requires energy; therefore, energy had to exist before the alleged First Cause acted.

"Second Cause" might be the closest you can get to a creator-god.  Creation from nothingness is absurd because creation would require energy, and energy isn't nothingness.

What I find funny is that the first three ways really point to pantheism. The Big Bang happened, and all (well... most, given anti-matter) of the matter and energy from that event are here as the universe.

The final two ways are really just "Nuh uh, the creator is intelligent and purposeful, so there."

[Whateverist]

After a lot of investigation, I am having trouble finding *one* thing that Thomist philosophy gets right.

Yeah, there was plenty to criticize at each turn but I thought the real mess started at 5).  Before that you could give a charitable but innocuous reading to 1-4.  Then it just started introducing attributes willy nilly to be sure only their kind of God would meet the requirements.  If he was at all serious about building an argument to persuade the unpersuaded, he'd look elsewhere even though we already know how well that will work out.

---

There were two prime movers! Kilibob and Manup.

Hmmm .. I always heard the two prime movers referred to as Thing One and Thing Two.  But who is to say?

[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.

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.

I know, it's sad, that even God speaking best words proving himself and the path, people turn away due to their ignorant desires and illusionary beliefs they hold on to.

---

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?

Nothing new, some people inclined to the shadows others are distressed by the shadows and seek the light.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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.

So who is your favorite deity and why does he get credit for creating you?

[vulcanlogician]

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.

I know little about Aquinas, but I'm not very impressed by the argument you've presented here. Polymath did a pretty good job of tearing it up.

It might benefit us for someone to come in and argue on Aquinas's behalf. Neo-Scholastic (as his username suggests) really gets off on Aquinas; he might be able to present the argument more charitably. Perhaps he'll drop into the thread and give his two cents.

[emjay]

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.

I know very little about Aquinas, but I'm not very impressed by the argument you've presented here. Polymath did a pretty good job of tearing it up.

It might benefit us for someone to come in and argue on Aquinas's behalf. Neo-Scholastic (as his username suggests) really gets off on Aquinas; he might be able to present the argument more charitably. Perhaps he'll drop into the thread and give his two cents.

In case you're interested vulcan, Neo did an official debate (in the debate area of the philosophy forum) on the subject of the Five Ways, HERE.

[vulcanlogician]

In case you're interested vulcan, Neo did an official debate (in the debate area of the philosophy forum) on the subject of the Five Ways, HERE.

I've read it before, but thanks for the link.

Was seriously unimpressed with how things unfolded But I thought Neo did an excellent job regardless. His performance in that debate was the main reason I thought he'd have something valuable to add to this discussion.

[emjay]

In case you're interested vulcan, Neo did an official debate (in the debate area of the philosophy forum) on the subject of the Five Ways, HERE.

I've read it before, but thanks for the link.

Was seriously unimpressed with how things unfolded   But I thought Neo did an excellent job regardless. His performance in that debate was the main reason I thought he'd have something valuable to add to this discussion.

Yeah, it would have been nice if that debate had gone the distance... there's something quite appealing about a formal and structured debate; more chance of staying on-topic and getting to the heart of a matter.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't understand why people have a problem with Thominsm. Everyone should be at least relatively fond of the weird awesomeness of Thom. After all, his music is weirdly great: