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!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 11:15 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Creationism
RE: Creationism
(August 12, 2020 at 1:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: Thomas Aquinas believed in the God of the Bible. He was clear that the first cause argument could not prove that.

"...and this we understand to be God."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, The Argument from Contingency

Quote:The first cause part can be argued for with logic.

No, it can't. It just looks that way when you do logic poorly. That's why the answer is rubbish.

Quote:If you think that there is something in science which proves that something can exist without there being any existence, please let us know.

I don't believe that I ever made such a claim.

Quote:Such a proof would falsify Thomas's argument. 

Aquinas' argument is logically flawed and unfalsifiable. It was a bad attempt at reconciling reason and faith long before we understood cosmology.
Reply
RE: Creationism
(August 13, 2020 at 9:43 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:
(August 12, 2020 at 1:22 am)Belacqua Wrote: Thomas Aquinas believed in the God of the Bible. He was clear that the first cause argument could not prove that.

"...and this we understand to be God."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, The Argument from Contingency

I think what's happening is we're not fully understanding each other and thereby talking past each other here. Aquinas' Ways serve as summaries of arguments for God-as-the-First-Cause and such, but not God as Yahweh/Trinity. For the latter, revelation is necessary (per Aquinas' view)

Note I italicized summaries above. This is because the Ways that you read on Wikipedia and elsewhere aren't meant to be the full arguments for God. So when anyone critiques the Ways without being familiar with the underlying reasoning, a lot of context is missed, a lot of premises that are implicit aren't realized, and people end up arguing/misarguing that therefore they're non-sequiturs and such.
Reply
RE: Creationism
(August 13, 2020 at 9:43 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: "...and this we understand to be God."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, The Argument from Contingency

What does the first cause argument attempt to show? 

That there is a first cause.

Did Thomas Aquinas believe that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

Yes he did.

Did he think that the first cause argument proves that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

No he did not.

Why did he think that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

Because he had separate arguments to that effect. 

If you asked him, "Thomas, does the first cause argument demonstrate that the first cause is the God of the Bible?" what would he say?

He would say, "No, it only proves that there is a first cause. Although I believe that the first cause is the God of the Bible, I believe it because I have separate arguments to that effect."
Reply
RE: Creationism
(August 14, 2020 at 1:19 am)Belacqua Wrote:
(August 13, 2020 at 9:43 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: "...and this we understand to be God."
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, The Argument from Contingency

What does the first cause argument attempt to show? 

That there is a first cause.

Did Thomas Aquinas believe that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

Yes he did.

Did he think that the first cause argument proves that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

No he did not.

Why did he think that the first cause is the God of the Bible?

Because he had separate arguments to that effect. 

If you asked him, "Thomas, does the first cause argument demonstrate that the first cause is the God of the Bible?" what would he say?

He would say, "No, it only proves that there is a first cause. Although I believe that the first cause is the God of the Bible, I believe it because I have separate arguments to that effect."

This reminds me to go back to finishing reading the book on Aquinas. There's a lot I'm ignorant about.
Reply
RE: Creationism
The funny part is that he does't actually have other arguments about why the first cause must be a god. That's something he believed because of revelation...because magic book said so.

Keep seeing the same thing over and over, the idea that his arguments only attempted to prove a god, not a christian god. The problem, for the umpteenth time, is that none of his arguments prove a god, any god, of any kind. What he did, was attempt three cosmological arguments, babbled about what would be best and how everything comes from the bestest of bests....then an argument from intelligent design.

Famous because he tried, not because he succeeded. His five ways were more like an orientation packet for priests who wanted to understand aristotelian philosophy. Over the course of his life he would go back and revise them, even revising the idea that any were proofs. Comforting the afflicted, not proving this or that.

If the only thing that a person knows* about saint tom is that he had valid arguments for the existence of a god, that person learned that shit in a church that didn't care about them or their intellectual development....and that's the real sin.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Creationism
(August 14, 2020 at 3:12 am)Grandizer Wrote: There's a lot I'm ignorant about.

Me too!

This is all endlessly fascinating, and I get surprised all the time by what I find.

Now I'm reading a thing about Thomist epistemology, and although I don't accept some of the premises, there is no question that the logic is powerful and challenging throughout. Large parts of it anticipate modern phenomenology, even in the specialty terms they use. 

And even where I don't accept the premise the concept is helpful. So for example they think that a purely intelligible mind, with no material substrate, is possible. I don't agree with that. But they largely use the concept of such a mind in order to demonstrate why a mind with a body (like that of a person) would have its ways of thinking determined by that body. We think as we do because of the kind of body we have. 

Plus there is a kind of science fiction pleasure in it. If one of the main reasons for reading books is to discover minds wildly different from my own (without hating them) then a clear explanation of how a non-embodied mind would think, in contrast to my own, is a pleasure and a challenge. Far more than something like Star Trek, for example, in which the aliens on distant planets are about as different from us as people in a different neighborhood of Los Angeles.
Reply
RE: Creationism
Finally, we agree on something. There's pleasure in fiction. I think that the main challenge in trying to conceive of an unembodied mind is that if the mind is made out of anything intelligible, that's still it's body. Doesn't have to be a meatsack like ours. If it's a mind made of some floating energy, then energy is that minds body - and we would expect it, like us, to be some sort of way referent to it's construction.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Creationism
(August 10, 2020 at 4:10 pm)Belacqua Wrote:
(August 10, 2020 at 10:10 am)Eleven Wrote: The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that all must have a creator.

Therefore, something must have created god.

But then theists decide via apologetic argumentation that special pleading is in order, thus stating that god always existed.

Think

Asking "if everything has a creator, then what created God?" is a lot like asking "if people evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" The question shows that you don't understand the argument. 

Granted, the straw man version is a lot more convenient.

The "god did it" is not very good an explanation.
It never says how it did it or where it got the stuff, just waggled its magic nose and everything just happened. 
It literally just avoids explaining things and has no positive value.



You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
RE: Creationism
Asking why there are still monkeys is a mistake because evolution does not posit that there would not be, or cannot be. Asking what created god is simply applying the rule that such arguments -do- assert about things needing a creator.

I like the greeks answer. What created gods? Titans.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Creationism
Great work, fellows.  Looking forward to the Anselm thread.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A theory about Creationism leaders Lucanus 24 7010 October 17, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Last Post: brewer
  Science Vs. The Forces of Creationism ScienceAf 15 2868 August 30, 2016 at 12:04 am
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Defending Young-Earth Creationism Scientifically JonDarbyXIII 42 10552 January 14, 2015 at 4:07 am
Last Post: Jacob(smooth)
  creationism belief makes you a sicko.. profanity alert for you sensitive girly men heathendegenerate 4 2003 May 7, 2014 at 12:00 am
Last Post: heathendegenerate
  Creationism in UK Schools Chuff 10 5499 August 3, 2012 at 9:50 am
Last Post: KichigaiNeko
  Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Gooders1002 10 7450 May 23, 2012 at 5:37 pm
Last Post: The Heff
  Lewis Black on creationism orogenicman 7 3788 April 14, 2012 at 9:04 am
Last Post: fuckass365
  Creationism Liu Bei mixed with Leondias 77 17453 September 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  The Opie and Anthony Show Tackles Creationism darkblight 0 1387 May 30, 2011 at 11:11 pm
Last Post: darkblight
  Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd) Sam 358 265915 March 3, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)