[Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.

[Belacqua]

Modern people tend to imagine they're supposed to be persuasive as they stand, which they aren't and weren't intended to be.

I mean, persuasive in what way? If his conclusions follow-- the argument is sound (which is what I assume Aquinas was going for), then that ought to persuade people.

What do you mean they weren't intended to be persuasive?

They're more like summaries, or tables of contents. They're not intended as self-evident proofs, like a syllogism or something. You can't just read one and make up your mind unless you have the prerequisites.

So for example the First Way is an argument from motion. But what Aquinas means by "motion" isn't what the modern English word means. To understand even the basic drift of the argument a person has to know all that stuff about act and potency. These were intended for theologians and students who had a solid background in all of this stuff, or were working on getting one. 

The Five Ways seem obviously wrong to a lot of modern people because they don't understand the first thing about them. The OP was good because he knows enough to make serious arguments.

What Kaufmann says is true.

---

the ancient Greeks were the first to coin the word "atom", but back then, it merely meant "the smallest thing one could emagine".

This is not true.

[Foxaèr]

So, basically, semantic apologetics.

[Brian37]

I mean, persuasive in what way? If his conclusions follow-- the argument is sound (which is what I assume Aquinas was going for), then that ought to persuade people.

What do you mean they weren't intended to be persuasive?

They're more like summaries, or tables of contents. They're not intended as self-evident proofs, like a syllogism or something. You can't just read one and make up your mind unless you have the prerequisites.

So for example the First Way is an argument from motion. But what Aquinas means by "motion" isn't what the modern English word means. To understand even the basic drift of the argument a person has to know all that stuff about act and potency. These were intended for theologians and students who had a solid background in all of this stuff, or were working on getting one. 

The Five Ways seem obviously wrong to a lot of modern people because they don't understand the first thing about them. The OP was good because he knows enough to make serious arguments.

---

the ancient Greeks were the first to coin the word "atom", but back then, it merely meant "the smallest thing one could emagine".

This is not true.

Fine, correct me.

But no matter what words used in antquity or what region or period of time, nobody knew what quarks, protons or electrons were back then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element

[Belacqua]

Fine, correct me.

The word means "indivisible." It means the smallest thing that can't be divided down into something smaller. As such, it has nothing to do with what modern people call atoms, because we know these are divisible. The Greek word and the English word refer to different things. 

The fact that we know more about physics now doesn't invalidate the metaphysical arguments. 

Anyway, this not a part of a Thomistic argument, so it's off topic.

[Brian37]

Fine, correct me.

The word means "indivisible." It means the smallest thing that can't be divided down into something smaller. As such, it has nothing to do with what modern people call atoms, because we know these are divisible. The Greek word and the English word refer to different things. 

The fact that we know more about physics now doesn't invalidate the metaphysical arguments. 

Anyway, this not a part of a Thomistic argument, so it's off topic.

This is my point. That co worker was trying to claim that Aquinus had modern knowledge bact then. 

"Metaphisical" is a fucking bullshit superstitious word. It is nothing more than retrofiting after the fact.

[arewethereyet]

The word means "indivisible." It means the smallest thing that can't be divided down into something smaller. As such, it has nothing to do with what modern people call atoms, because we know these are divisible. The Greek word and the English word refer to different things. 

The fact that we know more about physics now doesn't invalidate the metaphysical arguments. 

Anyway, this not a part of a Thomistic argument, so it's off topic.

This is my point. That co worker was trying to claim that Aquinus had modern knowledge bact then. 

"Metaphisical" is a fucking bullshit superstitious word. It is nothing more than retrofiting after the fact.

Metaphisical isn't even a word.

[Belacqua]

This is my point. That co worker was trying to claim that Aquinus had modern knowledge bact then. 

I'm not familiar with your co worker's argument, so I can't say. 

"Metaphisical" is a fucking bullshit superstitious word. It is nothing more than retrofiting after the fact.

Your statement here can't be proved by empirical evidence. Therefore this statement falls into the field of metaphysics. 

You're showing us that you have strong beliefs concerning which metaphysical position is correct. If you believe, for instance, that science is the best or even the only way to know what's true about the world, this is a metaphysical position.

[Foxaèr]

Metaphisical isn't even a word.

Really, that's the best you got? We all misspell, especially Valk when she's drunk.

[Brian37]

This is my point. That co worker was trying to claim that Aquinus had modern knowledge bact then. 

I'm not familiar with your co worker's argument, so I can't say. 

"Metaphisical" is a fucking bullshit superstitious word. It is nothing more than retrofiting after the fact.

Your statement here can't be proved by empirical evidence. Therefore this statement falls into the field of metaphysics. 

You're showing us that you have strong beliefs concerning which metaphysical position is correct. If you believe, for instance, that science is the best or even the only way to know what's true about the world, this is a metaphysical position.

Let me cut to the chase.

NOBODY, NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY in any part of the world in antiquity had any inclination as to what modern science today has proven. I am so fucking sick, of all parties involved, and I have seen all sorts from Christian, to Jewish, to Hindu, to Buddism to Muslim ect ect and MORE, all of them look back in time after the fact and claim they had insight and special knowlege to confirm "they" were reading into the future. NO THEY WERE NOT!

[Belacqua]

Let me cut to the chase.

NOBODY, NOBODY, AND I MEAN NOBODY in any part of the world in antiquity had any inclination as to what modern science today has proven. I am so fucking sick, of all parties involved, and I have seen all sorts from Christian, to Jewish, to Hindu, to Buddism to Muslim ect ect and MORE, all of them look back in time after the fact and claim they had insight and special knowlege to confirm "they" were reading into the future. NO THEY WERE NOT!

Some people in the past were incredibly smart, and figured out things that were pretty amazing.

But I agree with you that they couldn't see into the future.