Creationism

[Silver]

A theist arguing that logic cannot be used, shocker!

[The Grand Nudger]

More like it's not a good tool for arriving at salvific knowledge. He seemed to have trouble picking a stream. In spite of that stated position, he routinely insisted that logic could and did certify christian beliefs.

[Belacqua]

Can we safely say that Saint Thomas Aquinas was one such individual who argued precisely that or are you going to suggest that the Summa Theologica was arguing for deism?

Thomas Aquinas believed in the God of the Bible. He was clear that the first cause argument could not prove that. 

The first cause argument only proves that there is a first cause.

He did not believe in deism.

As much as I love the redefinition game it should be noted that Thomas Aquinas argued for both a temporal sequence and logical primacy. As for Aristotle, the phrase "unmoved mover" pretty much shrieks of a temporal sequence.

This is not a "redefinition." The word he was using came first. 

Thomas specifically rejected the Kalam-style first cause as a moment in a temporal sequence.

As Grandizer has pointed out, Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. Thomas said that a beginning could not be proved by logical argument. His first cause doesn't address that.

Unlike so many people, he was very clear on what logic could prove (natural theology) and what it couldn't. He thought that some parts of Christianity can be shown with logic, and some can't.

The first cause part can be argued for with logic. Not the Trinity or Jesus-as-savior part.

Typing out what the Argument From First Cause "actually" says would be a damned sight easier if there weren't dozens of different ones to pick from. 

That's why I was very clear which one I was talking about. 

Little matter since they all founder on our complete ignorance regarding plucking a universe from nothing. From that fatal flaw they either degenerate into unsupported argumentation or complete non sequitur.

The argument I described says nothing about "plucking a universe from nothing." It doesn't address any temporal beginning, or anything "before" there was something. 

If you think that there is something in science which proves that something can exist without there being any existence, please let us know. Such a proof would falsify Thomas's argument. 

If you can point me to any reliable links or sources which contradict what I've said here I'll be happy to look at them.

[brewer]

If you think that there is something in science which proves that something can exist without there being any existence, please let us know. Such a proof would falsify Thomas's argument. 

Why do you think science has to address the flawed argument that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?

The Thomas arguments only utility is to justify god (christian god) for believers. It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept, and still remain a flawed justification.

[The Grand Nudger]

-or no god at all. Tommy appears to have believed that by proving cats exist, a person has proven that a god exists. I could call a tuna sandwich god and I doubt that any christian would abandon the church and worship my lunch.

If someone wants to argue for being as a first cause, in this very specific sense of a cause..then fine. I agree. Thought it was an argument for gods...but whatever.

[GrandizerII]

If you think that there is something in science which proves that something can exist without there being any existence, please let us know. Such a proof would falsify Thomas's argument. 

Why do you think science has to address the flawed argument that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?

The Thomas arguments only utility is to justify god (christian god) for believers. It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept, and still remain a flawed justification.

Aquinas' Ways are intended to show, through reason, that "something" that could be rightly called "God" exists. But yes, I agree they are ultimately meant to serve as [partial] justification for belief in a particular type of God, namely the triune Christian God, even if these arguments perse don't specifically point there. For Aquinas, the Trinity and various other stuff about God could only be known through revelation, not logic.

What I find interesting are the debates Christians have amongst each other regarding whether the God of Aquinas is in line with the God of Scriptures. Some Christians believe that the notion of God being absolute divine simplicity contradicts God as the Trinity and takes away from his agency/personhood. Other Christians who agree with Aquinas have had to work out ways to reconcile the Trinity with absolute simplicity. And the debate continues.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep. Thomism was completely abandoned as a failure for some time - making a comeback now since there's just nothing new to sell. I wonder how long until they resurrect his very logical thoughts on witchcraft and debate them.

[Belacqua]

Why do you think science has to address

Science doesn't have to address this or any other metaphysical argument. Metaphysics is not something science can address.

If, however, someone is claiming that science has falsified the argument or made it irrelevant, he should be able to say why. And to say why he'd have to know what the argument really says.

the flawed argument

You haven't shown that it's flawed. You've just asserted it.

 that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?

When Aristotle came up with the argument, he wasn't trying to shoehorn God into anything. He was trying to figure out how the world worked. 

Nor was he talking about the beginning of the universe. That's been explained twice on this thread already.

If you feel you can read the mind of a man who has been dead for millennia, and discern that he had secret motivations which he never said or wrote, then you are drawing you conclusions from supernatural mind-reading, not scholarship. If we're talking about the history of ideas, it's better to avoid fake ESP.

It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept

No, it could not apply to the Greek gods, who were not seen as first causes. Aphrodite is wholly unlike a first cause. Nor could it apply to Shinto kami, etc. 

It could apply to any monotheistic God which was described as a first cause. I've already addressed that in this thread. To show that the first cause is the God of any specific religion requires further argument.

Why do I have to repeat this?

, and still remain a flawed justification.

Second time for this unsupported assertion.

[brewer]

Why do you think science has to address

Science doesn't have to address this or any other metaphysical argument. Metaphysics is not something science can address.

If, however, someone is claiming that science has falsified the argument or made it irrelevant, he should be able to say why. And to say why he'd have to know what the argument really says.

the flawed argument

You haven't shown that it's flawed. You've just asserted it.

 that was designed from the outset to shoehorn god into the beginning of the universe?

When Aristotle came up with the argument, he wasn't trying to shoehorn God into anything. He was trying to figure out how the world worked. 

Nor was he talking about the beginning of the universe. That's been explained twice on this thread already.

If you feel you can read the mind of a man who has been dead for millennia, and discern that he had secret motivations which he never said or wrote, then you are drawing you conclusions from supernatural mind-reading, not scholarship. If we're talking about the history of ideas, it's better to avoid fake ESP.

It could just as easily be applied to any other god/creator concept

No, it could not apply to the Greek gods, who were not seen as first causes. Aphrodite is wholly unlike a first cause. Nor could it apply to Shinto kami, etc. 

It could apply to any monotheistic God which was described as a first cause. I've already addressed that in this thread. To show that the first cause is the God of any specific religion requires further argument.

Why do I have to repeat this?

, and still remain a flawed justification.

Second time for this unsupported assertion.

Fine, swap creation for universe in my previous comment.

Thomas did the god shoehorning, not Aristotle. And god as a first cause is simply a religious assertion with religious motivations for religious justifications. It only applies if your religious. It has no application outside religion.

Nope, does not have to be monotheism, you just want it to be. If you could read, I stated that it could apply to any creator god or gods. Just because Thomas described it that way does not help validate the argument. It only has to be a "creator".

Nope, still flawed justification if the person considering the argument is not religious. "Therefore god" is a rationalization/justification only for the religious. The rest of us get to consider "creation" in any context or explanation that we like. There is nothing special to Thomas outside religion.

You call it an assertion, I call it a conclusion. Your assertion of calling what I conclude flawed an assertion is an unsupported assertion. (I can play this game also)

BTW, there is infinite regress. All if this is pointless.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was a poor choice of stand to insist that science cannot answer metaphysics, especially in the context of being or thomist metaphysics. Mostly, because one generations metaphysics can become the next generations plain old physics - which has happened multiple times since saint tom...and even more hilariously, since saint tom was using the science of his day to answer the metaphysical questions of his day.

It's no more or less than the insistence that in case our pet metaphysicians can't prove themselves right, at least they can't be proven wrong. It's self serving, illogical, and false. Any cognitive statement that can be true, can also be false. That's a requirement of cognitive statements. If a metaphysical statement has a truth value, if it is a cognitive statament, that value can be false - and a system for assessing the soundness of our assertions can most definitely answer it. Truth values are fundamentally premised on exactly this.

There's a reason that early scientists expected science to prove their gods, and then turned on that notion and science in general when it went the other way for them.