How do atheist\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?

[jon462]

Many philosophers have torn holes in rational proofs of God made by Descartes, Anselm, Augustine, etc., so much so that even religious philosophers such as myself rarely use their proofs. However, as far as I am aware, no one has ever been able to disprove or even discredit Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence, which are scientific in nature. I think that a skeptic in the tradition of David Hume could easily do so, however in my experience most modern atheists are not skeptics but scientists (you cannot be a skeptic and a scientist). I cannot comprehend how an intellectually honest scientist could read Aquinas' proof and not confess that God must exist.

For those of you not familiar with his proofs here is the full text: http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs%20of%20God/thomas_aquinas.htm

The 4th and 5th proofs are a little too Aristotelian I think and different than the first three, so I would rather keep this discussion to the first 3 proofs are very relevant.

1.The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot. Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."
Aquinas predates Newton by a couple of hundred years, but it seems to me this is a logical and obvious conclusion of Newtons laws of physics.

2. The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."
Again, seems to me obvious to anyone with an understanding of causality, which always makes me wonder how so many scientists can be atheists (in that science is based on causality

3. The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

The first two proofs prove that there must be a creator (God). The third one proves he has no cause, i.e. he is eternal. For those of you interested, the 4th proves he is perfection and goodness, the 5th that he is still a controlling force in the world (however, as I said Id rather just discuss the first three).

[Zygote]

David Hume, among other western philosophers, was the first to outline the serious flaws in Aquinas' agruments. Since these discoveries, Aquanis' arguements have proven to hold little to no weight amongst modern non-theistic philosophers. I wrote a paper critiquing Aquinas in university, but can't seem to find where it is right now. When i have some time i'll make specifc comments.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
David Hume, among other western philosophers, was the first to outline the serious flaws in Aquinas' agruments. Since these discoveries, Aquanis' arguements have proven to hold little to no weight amongst modern non-theistic philosophers. I wrote a paper critiquing Aquinas in university, but can't seem to find where it is right now. When i have some time i'll make specifc comments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would appreciate that. I am not familiar with this critique in particular, however I am familiar with Hume. As I mentioned above, I can see how a skeptic would dismiss it - quite easily since Hume dismisses outright cause and effect, and the crux of Aquinas argument is based on cause and effect. However, I am I not correct that skeptics in modern science are even rarer than Christians? I think if you use Hume's argument to dispute Aquinas, then you have to be willing to say that science itself is a religion - since it too is based on causality (which a few philosophers of science have claimed but most practicing scienctists arent ready to admit). This is why I am interested in seeing how a non-skeptic atheist would handle Aquinas. In my opinion, you can really use David Hume to dispute any argument arguing any point about anything, so its not exactly fair.

[BZ_Zorro]

Who?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people call it the big bang. EDIT: Let me also comment that first cause arguments seem extremely weak. Why is God exempt from the requirement of being caused, and if you're going to assume that you can have something exempt of that requirement, then the argument is pointless in the first place as you could just as well choose something else.

[ QUOTE ]
If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this makes a lick of sense. Let me make an analogy. Let's say I have a set of integers {1, 2, 3}. Now let's say that at each time step, I remove the smallest number in the set and add the smallest natural number not in the set to the set, i.e {1,2,3} -> {2,3,4} -> {3,4,5}. Consider membership in the set existence. Every natural number will be nonexistent at some point, but this does not demonstrate that there is a time where nothing exists - the set is never empty.

[mrgold]

In addition to causality all of these proofs rely on a general belief in a beginning of time. They assume that something had to bring everything into existance, set everythig into motion, etc... but why is it that they could not have merely existed w/ motion energy and all in the same way that a god could exist.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people call it the big bang. EDIT: Let me also comment that first cause arguments seem extremely weak. Why is God exempt from the requirement of being caused, and if you're going to assume that you can have something exempt of that requirement, then the argument is pointless in the first place as you could just as well choose something else.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the big bang. But what caused the big bang? And what caused that which caused the big bang? The point is clear that there has to be something that was the first cause, and since it is the first cause, it could not have been caused itself - i.e. it must have always existed. You can arbitrarily call this thing whatever you like: Aquinas calls it God.

[[censored]]

doesn't all he "prove" is that there is a force beyond our current understanding? Certainly you could label this god, but it is somewhat misleading in that most people have a very specific belief as to that god is ,originating from type of scripture. This does nothing to prove anything close to what most people consider god to be.

I don't think science denies the fact that there is some force (ie what caused the thing, that caused the big bang or whatever) that cannot be explained.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to causality all of these proofs rely on a general belief in a beginning of time. They assume that something had to bring everything into existance, set everythig into motion, etc... but why is it that they could not have merely existed w/ motion energy and all in the same way that a god could exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they dont assume that at all. In fact I think (as I imagine Aquinas would) that it is nonsensical to imagine time ever "began." As for space (and perhaps that is what you meant) how could there not be a beginning of space? There was a time when the earth didnt exist, as well as the sun, universe, etc. As for your implicit argument that every effect has a cause ad infinitum, as some kind of time loop (???), well I think Aquinas assumes you are working within the frames of logic here, as that is clearly impossible. If you assume that every effect has a cause (which everyone who is not David Hume does), then if you follow every effect back to its cause there has to, EVENTUALLY, be a first cause. Again, you can call that first cause whatever you want; Aquinas calls it God.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't all he "prove" is that there is a force beyond our current understanding? Certainly you could label this god, but it is somewhat misleading in that most people have a very specific belief as to that god is ,originating from type of scripture. This does nothing to prove anything close to what most people consider god to be.

I don't think science denies the fact that there is some force (ie what caused the thing, that caused the big bang or whatever) that cannot be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course, you are correct. This proof only proves the existence of God, it does not in any way prove that He is one and three, that Jesus died for our sins, that there is a heaven or hell, etc. Those are questions of theology and faith, and impossible to prove or disprove.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, the big bang. But what caused the big bang?

[/ QUOTE ]

What caused God?

Also, to say that you can call it whatever you like is kind of disingenuous if what you're going to call it is an entity that you are supposing elsewhere has particular properties. In other words, fine, suppose a first cause and call it God, but now take what we normally refer to as God and call it Blapskopolis or something.

[ZeeJustin]

There "proofs" are terrible, and if you can't dissprove every single one of these, I feel sorry for you and your logic of logic.

1) [ QUOTE ]
It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suck at physics, but there are constant forces. One is gravity, which is already enough to dissprove his first contention. I'm under the impression that recently the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force have all recently been combined into one force, but either way, they are a damn good explanation for movevement.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."


[/ QUOTE ]

If he defines the thing that moves other stuff as God, he is simply defining God as the forces of the universe that science can already explain.

2) [ QUOTE ]
We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause... Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

This A) assumes there is a beginning of time that we can pinpoint the first existence of matter, and we can't really assume there was a beginning.

Also, it is a common flaw among "believers" to assume that atheists can't account for the beginning of the universe, but believers can. "God has always existed and God created everything else". If you can just assume God has always existed, I can just assume that the matter in the universe has always existed. It's that simply. "Believers" are just as clueless about the origin of the universe as atheists are, and saying that God always existed, but the rest of the universe hasn't is such a cop out.

3) [ QUOTE ]
We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time... Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, he is finding a hole in scientific understanding, and saying that he himself doesn't know the answer, but he is at the same defining the answer as God.

Let me make an analogy for you. "I lost my wallet this morning, but I haven't touched it since I sat it on my desk last night. Something must have moved my wallet, and that something is God."

Also, he is making the same cop out as in his 2nd point saying that God has always existed. What the [censored] gives God the ability to always exist without explanation, when everything else requires explanation?

This last point might have some flaws in it, but I'm going to make it anway for the sake of discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is false. It is NOT possible for ANY particular thing to have ever not existed. According to physics, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. If it cannot be created, we must assume that it has always existed. If matter has always existed, his entire 3rd point is completely disproven.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this makes a lick of sense. Let me make an analogy. Let's say I have a set of integers {1, 2, 3}. Now let's say that at each time step, I remove the smallest number in the set and add the smallest natural number not in the set to the set, i.e {1,2,3} -> {2,3,4} -> {3,4,5}. Consider membership in the set existence. Every natural number will be nonexistent at some point, but this does not demonstrate that there is a time where nothing exists - the set is never empty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, Im not sure you will be satisfied with my answer, but here goes. The notion of possibility when applied to existence, in the Aristotelian\Thomistic since, implies that - given an infinite amount of time - a thing which can possibility exist must at sometimes exist and at other times not exist. If it always existed, then its existence would be necessary, not possible. Since all possible things at one point exist and at one point do not exist - well given an infinite amount of time every possible combination of existence and non-existence would occur - including the instance of no possible existences existing. (clearly it is impossible for their to be a time when nothing existed, as then nothing could be created and there for nothing would ever exist, so their must be one thing which exists by necessity, i.e. God)

As for your above example, well maybe I will get really lucky and someone with a better understanding of Aquinas and\or mathematics will chime in. It seems to me you have set up an arbitrary rule that the universe does not follow. How can you say " remove the smallest number in the set and add the smallest natural number not in the set to the set" - who is to say that that the set will not be incresed to more than 3 numbers, or that 5 will change to -3, etc. - and at one point in time it will be reduced to 0 numbers?

[BZ_Zorro]

Science is based on the philosophy of naturalism. God is a metaphysical entity, by definition. Therefore, the existence of God cannot be proven scientifically.

Aquinas, eat your heart out.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is false. It is NOT possible for ANY particular thing to have ever not existed. According to physics, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. If it cannot be created, we must assume that it has always existed. If matter has always existed, his entire 3rd point is completely disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with you that the statement you're arguing against is pretty much nonsensical, I don't think this is a strong argument. Conservation of mass doesn't mean that this chair that I'm sitting on has existed since the dawn of time, so we need to specify what we mean. If we just mean matter, then conservation of mass isn't the whole story here, either. Radioactive decay, as an obvious example, is going to produce energy and new atoms that didn't previously exist. While there was presumably the same amount of energy at the beginning of the universe, the form that it took was likely so wildly different from what we have now that I think it's not unreasonable to say that very little existed at that point.

[David Sklansky]

"If you assume that every effect has a cause (which everyone who is not David Hume does),"

Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause. For instance the decay of a subatomic particle. If it has a half life of three years it is even money to decay within that time and a 7-1 favorite to decay within nine years. More importantly is the understanding that the 7-1 you could lay, does not at all depend on how long it has existed up to the point you observed it and laid the price. Someone who has been watching it for many years previously has no advantage over you, the bookmaker who just walked into the room. This basically implies that nothing caused its decay. Other than a random number generator that itself could not be predicted. (Is God simply a pure random number generator? Not what Aquinas had in mind, I would guess.)

Of course Aquinas would have had no reason to know this. Even Einstein resisted the notion but was eventually pretty close to rigorously proven wrong (Bell's Theorem? plus of course mountains of experimental evidence). But the upshot of all this, I think, is that it no longer matters if any proof of God is otherwise flawed or not as long as it rests on the quote above. If God exists, quantum theory, not just Hume, says you can't prove it this way.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
However, as far as I am aware, no one has ever been able to disprove or even discredit Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence, which are scientific in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?


[ QUOTE ]
1. <snip> Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not at all what everyone means by "God." The "first mover" could be just some physical force such as gravity, but that doesn't mean we whould worship it.

Also, Aquinas provides no evidence that "This cannot go on to infinity." Maybe the past is infinite, maybe it isn't. But there's no logical reason that it can't be.

Also: Who moved God?

[ QUOTE ]
2. The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. <snip> Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the exact same argument so the same objections apply. The first cause could be an abstract physical law, but that doesn't mean we should worship it. There may not be a first cause. And, who caused God?

[ QUOTE ]
3. The third way is based on possibility and necessity. <snip> If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. <snip> Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same mistake again. Maybe the universe always existed, as an infinite chain of events (even if they occurred over a finite period -- think of an infinite series of numbers with a finite sum). That doesn't mean that the universe is what everyone calls "God." There's still no reason to worship it.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is false. It is NOT possible for ANY particular thing to have ever not existed. According to physics, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. If it cannot be created, we must assume that it has always existed. If matter has always existed, his entire 3rd point is completely disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with you that the statement you're arguing against is pretty much nonsensical, I don't think this is a strong argument. Conservation of mass doesn't mean that this chair that I'm sitting on has existed since the dawn of time, so we need to specify what we mean. If we just mean matter, then conservation of mass isn't the whole story here, either. Radioactive decay, as an obvious example, is going to produce energy and new atoms that didn't previously exist. While there was presumably the same amount of energy at the beginning of the universe, the form that it took was likely so wildly different from what we have now that I think it's not unreasonable to say that very little existed at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the matter in the universe has changed forms many times over throughout the course of time. I don't see how this is relevent to the question at hand.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Since all possible things at one point exist and at one point do not exist - well given an infinite amount of time every possible combination of existence and non-existence would occur - including the instance of no possible existences existing.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this does not follow. Say that object A and object B must always exist together, for example. Then you can't realize instances where object A and object B exist separately. More fundamentally, to say that given an infinite amount of time every possible combination must be reached is an assumption - not unlike the kinds of assumptions that go into statistical mechanics, incidentally. It could very well just cycle through a relatively small subset of possible combinations. If you assume a countable number of things, then it might be that there are a countable number of combinations that can be reached rather the uncountable number that you are suggesting by saying we must explore the entire power set of existence/nonexistence sets.

[gumpzilla]

Your earlier accout was oversimplified. I was pointing out that say, an atom of barium that was produced as a result of a nuclear fission reaction has not in any conventional sense existed since the dawn of time.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause. For instance the decay of a subatomic particle.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your knowledge of quantum physics is correct on this point.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course Aquinas would have had no reason to know this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but he should have realized that it's not logically impossible and treated it as an unsolved empirical issue rather than a self-evident premise.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course Aquinas would have had no reason to know this. Even Einstein resisted the notion but was eventually pretty close to rigorously proven wrong (Bell's Theorem? plus of course mountains of experimental evidence).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bell's Theorem says that if you're going to have a hidden variable theory - meaning a theory of quantum mechanics that asserts that measurements are deterministic and represent averages or functions of "hidden variables" that are at least thus far experimentally inaccessible - it requires nonlocality.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course Aquinas would have had no reason to know this. Even Einstein resisted the notion but was eventually pretty close to rigorously proven wrong (Bell's Theorem? plus of course mountains of experimental evidence).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bell's Theorem says that if you're going to have a hidden variable theory - meaning a theory of quantum mechanics that asserts that measurements are deterministic and represent averages or functions of "hidden variables" that are at least thus far experimentally inaccessible - it requires nonlocality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation is deterministic without resorting to nonlocality (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0003/0003146.pdf) -- but that's a major hijack.

[David Sklansky]

Please define non locality.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define non locality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say I have two entangled spins in the state |10> + |01>. If I measure spin A and find it to be 0, quantum mechanics tells me that if I measure spin B I must find it to be 1 (provided that I do the measurement quickly enough so that the wavefunction doesn't begin spreading, blah blah blah.) The separation of A and B don't matter, and the collapse is instantaneous. So it allows for faster-than-light influences, which is what nonlocality means in this context. The reason usually cited why this isn't so worrisome is that while there are correlations between the measurements, it takes classical information transfer between the two measurers to perceive these correlations, and so you can't use this property to do things that special relativity should forbid you to. It's a slightly dodgy argument. maurile's link looks interesting; I have a strong distaste for many-worlds, though.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
There "proofs" are terrible, and if you can't dissprove every single one of these, I feel sorry for you and your logic of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting out an argument by insulting your opponent is the sign of a weak intellectual mind, Zee. Nevertheless, should I feel sorry for your "logic of logic," because you havent done anything but talk in circles and have done nothing to disprove it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suck at physics, but there are constant forces. One is gravity, which is already enough to dissprove his first contention. I'm under the impression that recently the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force have all recently been combined into one force, but either way, they are a damn good explanation for movevement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that makes two of us that suck at physics, but I was under the assumption that gravity is only a constant force insomuch as there is matter to cause it. So it is fair to say gravity was "created" when the matter was created. In any rate, gravity is "caused" by the density of matter, it is not a force in of itself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."


[/ QUOTE ]

If he defines the thing that moves other stuff as God, he is simply defining God as the forces of the universe that science can already explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf? please do more than skim the post before you respond. He is not saying, for instance, God directly caused bodies to fall towards an object of denser matter. That is caused by gravity, quite obviously (although he may not have understood gravity, in that he wrote before Newton, he most definately understood scientific laws). The point is something causes gravity, and that thing is caused by something, and so on, and so on, and so on. It does not take very many "and so ons" at all before we are quite beyond what science can explain. Do you know what "causes" gravity? Although science may have an explanation for it, I am quite sure they cannot explain the cause of the cause. Regardless, that is beside the point - it is impossible for their regress ad infinitum explaining each cause (it violates logic) - at some point there must have been a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause... Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

This A) assumes there is a beginning of time that we can pinpoint the first existence of matter, and we can't really assume there was a beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you mean we cant pinpoint the first existence of matter, well of course this is true, and I doubt we ever will. But there have been a beginning. Even big bang theorists and similar theories posit a beginning of matter, and the idea that matter always existed is quite absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is a common flaw among "believers" to assume that atheists can't account for the beginning of the universe, but believers can. "God has always existed and God created everything else". If you can just assume God has always existed, I can just assume that the matter in the universe has always existed. It's that simply. "Believers" are just as clueless about the origin of the universe as atheists are, and saying that God always existed, but the rest of the universe hasn't is such a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, this comment seems to me quit beyond the scope of this discussion and just an exscuse for you to "dig" at Christians. No where did I attempt to prove the biblical explanation for the creation of the universe or defend commonly held beliefs by believers. Or does Aquinas discuss "how" God created the universe - I am quite willing to concede believers do not know how that happenned. As for matter, the notion that is has always existed is absurd. Over eons of time mountains crumble, oceans dry up, stars implode and planets are destroyed. I realize in the short term of millions of millenia this is just matter changing shape - nonetheless each change has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, etc. - and a basic understanding of logic will bring the conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time... Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, he is finding a hole in scientific understanding, and saying that he himself doesn't know the answer, but he is at the same defining the answer as God.

Let me make an analogy for you. "I lost my wallet this morning, but I haven't touched it since I sat it on my desk last night. Something must have moved my wallet, and that something is God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy is horrible, and shows your complete misunderstanding of the text (or perhaps your indifference to attempt to understand it). A more correct understanding would be: your wallet is missing because you got drunk last night and moved it, but forgot when you sobered up. You got drunk because you are an alcoholic. You are an alcoholic because you were beat by an alcoholic father. Your father was an acholic because x, x because y, y because... on and on and on. But eventually there has to be a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, he is making the same cop out as in his 2nd point saying that God has always existed. What the [censored] gives God the ability to always exist without explanation, when everything else requires explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant tell here if you just dont understand the text or are intentionally distorting it. Regardless, there must be a first cause. Since this first cause could not have been caused (it is the first cause after all) it must have always existed. That is logic. I am not going to explain it further other than if you dont understand it an elementary logic course at a local community college wouldnt hurt. This doesnt mean the first cause necessarily has all the characteristics Christians and Jews and Muslims associate with God. But since the characteristics he has proven match some of those we believe about God, he calls it "God." "God" is just a name however, call is the "prime mover" if you wish - that is what Aristotle called it.

[ QUOTE ]

This last point might have some flaws in it, but I'm going to make it anway for the sake of discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is false. It is NOT possible for ANY particular thing to have ever not existed. According to physics, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. If it cannot be created, we must assume that it has always existed. If matter has always existed, his entire 3rd point is completely disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, perhaps you should alert the scientific community that there efforts to explain the creation of the universe over the past few decades (big bang, etc.) is a waste of time - ZeeJustin says that matter always existed!

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Please define non locality.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance."

There's no simple way to describe it, but this tutorial (http://www.gilestv.com/tutorials/nonlocal.html) and this essay (http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/bell.html) are decent resources.

The two-sentence version is this. Edit: It ended up being far more than two sentences and was still oversimplified to the point of inaccuracy. So I'm deleting, and will just reiterate that there's no easy way to describe it.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since all possible things at one point exist and at one point do not exist - well given an infinite amount of time every possible combination of existence and non-existence would occur - including the instance of no possible existences existing.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, this does not follow. Say that object A and object B must always exist together, for example. Then you can't realize instances where object A and object B exist separately. More fundamentally, to say that given an infinite amount of time every possible combination must be reached is an assumption - not unlike the kinds of assumptions that go into statistical mechanics, incidentally. It could very well just cycle through a relatively small subset of possible combinations. If you assume a countable number of things, then it might be that there are a countable number of combinations that can be reached rather the uncountable number that you are suggesting by saying we must explore the entire power set of existence/nonexistence sets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not wish to defend his third law anymore. This is because I do not completely understand it, and I wasnt quite sure that the text you quoted made any sense as I wrote it - it was my feeble attempt to explain it and very possibly not what Aquinas would have meant. I am much more comfortable defending the first two. I am not conceding the point - I simply am not adequate to defend Aquinas here and do not wish to make an ass of myself.

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you assume that every effect has a cause (which everyone who is not David Hume does),"

Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause. For instance the decay of a subatomic particle. If it has a half life of three years it is even money to decay within that time and a 7-1 favorite to decay within nine years. More importantly is the understanding that the 7-1 you could lay, does not at all depend on how long it has existed up to the point you observed it and laid the price. Someone who has been watching it for many years previously has no advantage over you, the bookmaker who just walked into the room. This basically implies that nothing caused its decay. Other than a random number generator that itself could not be predicted. (Is God simply a pure random number generator? Not what Aquinas had in mind, I would guess.)

Of course Aquinas would have had no reason to know this. Even Einstein resisted the notion but was eventually pretty close to rigorously proven wrong (Bell's Theorem? plus of course mountains of experimental evidence). But the upshot of all this, I think, is that it no longer matters if any proof of God is otherwise flawed or not as long as it rests on the quote above. If God exists, quantum theory, not just Hume, says you can't prove it this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

It makes more sense to me that there is a cause which simply cannot be explained by science currently. But I have very little knowledge of quantum physics myself, so I do not claim that to be fact. It seems ironic to me, however, how much faith is required to accept many tenants of modern science, so much so that I think it is becoming more and more like a religion - and there have been many respected philosophers of science in the past few decades that agree with me (Thomas Kuhn, for example).

[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, as far as I am aware, no one has ever been able to disprove or even discredit Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God's existence, which are scientific in nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously?

[ QUOTE ]
1. <snip> Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not at all what everyone means by "God." The "first mover" could be just some physical force such as gravity, but that doesn't mean we whould worship it.

Also, Aquinas provides no evidence that "This cannot go on to infinity." Maybe the past is infinite, maybe it isn't. But there's no logical reason that it can't be.

Also: Who moved God?

[ QUOTE ]
2. The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. <snip> Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the exact same argument so the same objections apply. The first cause could be an abstract physical law, but that doesn't mean we should worship it. There may not be a first cause. And, who caused God?

[ QUOTE ]
3. The third way is based on possibility and necessity. <snip> If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. <snip> Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the same mistake again. Maybe the universe always existed, as an infinite chain of events (even if they occurred over a finite period -- think of an infinite series of numbers with a finite sum). That doesn't mean that the universe is what everyone calls "God." There's still no reason to worship it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you hung up on whether we should worship The First mover or not? That is a matter of faith, not of logic. Indeed you could say Aquinas is not proving "God," so to speak, but that there is a prime mover, prime causer, who always existed. Since there can be only one, and the "prime mover" has the same characteristics as that thing which we call God, he labels it God. Perhaps so his audience will know what he is talking about? But as I said, you can call it "prime mover" or "Ginju" or whatever you want to call it.
Whether you worship it or not depends on whether you believe it to be benevolent, to love you and care for you well-being, to be worthy of your obedience, etc., and is entirely beyond the scope of this discussion.

As for Aquinas proving that we cannot regress through an infinity of causes.. surely you cannot be serious? You are going to have to explain to me how it could be possible, because it seems like common sense to me.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation is deterministic without resorting to nonlocality (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0003/0003146.pdf) -- but that's a major hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I need to read some of the earlier references to many-worlds, this didn't seem to be saying much to me. First off, it seems like a strange kind of determinism when which "world" we end up in is still random. There are theories like Bohm's pilot wave (I'm pretty ignorant about this, so don't push me too hard) that are deterministic in a more conventional sense. The main point Tipler seemed to be making was that the correlations don't exist if you don't make his "third measurement" and compare the results. Of course, from the perspective of a person measuring either spin A or spin B, they're going to perceive a random string of ups and downs and not determine the correlations until they compare notes later even with a more conventional QM interpretation. So I guess I don't really see the point yet.

[ZeeJustin]

In all of your counter arguments, all you did was discuss the first cause. Let me address this specifically.
1) There is no reason to assume that there was a first cause. I don't know much about quantum physics, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
2) If you define God as the first cause, that does not prove God exists, because you have not yet proven there had to have been a first cause.
3) Even if you could somehow prove there was a first cause, defining it as God is silly for several reasons. First of all, it goes against every common definition. Secondly, when looknig for something, it makes little sense to find the thing that you know the least about, and claim that is what you were looking for all along. The search for God should not be about finding holes in science, and claiming God is the hole. Believers have been doing this for ages, and science has filled many of the holes already. Eventually, I like to believe we will fill them all.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you hung up on whether we should worship The First mover or not? That is a matter of faith, not of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the word "God" has a lot of baggage that comes with it, including the notion that we should worship Him. So if Aquinas wants to prove that "God" exists, he can't do this merely by showing that there was a first cause. He has to also show that the first cause has the other characteristics commonly associated with "God" -- i.e., that it is intelligent, benevolent, etc. Otherwise, it is an equivocation fallacy to refer to it is "God."

[ QUOTE ]
As for Aquinas proving that we cannot regress through an infinity of causes.. surely you cannot be serious? You are going to have to explain to me how it could be possible, because it seems like common sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything is possible until iti s shown to be impossible. Can you show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Everett's Many-Worlds interpretation is deterministic without resorting to nonlocality (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0003/0003146.pdf) -- but that's a major hijack.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I need to read some of the earlier references to many-worlds, this didn't seem to be saying much to me. First off, it seems like a strange kind of determinism when which "world" we end up in is still random.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll start by saying that I think of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM the same way I think of certain brain-in-a-vat scenarios. It is "obviously" wrong; it's just that there's no evidence against it.

That said, the world "we" end up in is not random. "We" are in every possible world. The version of us in this world is having this exact discussion while the versions of us in the other worlds are doing various other things. The version of us in this world is limited to observing this world, but we're non-randomly in all of them.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO

Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A;

1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist.
2. You can't regress infinitely.
//
3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO

Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A;

1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist.
2. You can't regress infinitely.
//
3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO

Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A;

1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist.
2. You can't regress infinitely.
//
3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you pat yourself on the back for supposedly exposing a logical flaw, you should go back to the OP's post and reread #2. You did not state Aquinas' arguement correctly. It is your rendering of it that contains a logical flaw, because you did not properly state the first term, which should include "if there is no first cause".

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause

[/ QUOTE ]

BINGO

Not to mention Aquinas's argument is invalid, as the conclusion contradicts the first premise. A therefore ~A;

1. All things require something prior to them to cause them, or else they cannot exist.
2. You can't regress infinitely.
//
3. Therefore, there had to have been one thing which exists without havin something prior to it to cause it to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before you pat yourself on the back for supposedly exposing a logical flaw, you should go back to the OP's post and reread #2. You did not state Aquinas' arguement correctly. It is your rendering of it that contains a logical flaw, because you did not properly state the first term, which should include "if there is no first cause".

[/ QUOTE ]

Fix my post to "correctly" reflect Aquinas' argument(s) then. As in, write the argument as a logical proof. The argument will be invalid unless you try really hard to squeeze out some additional unmentioned premise.

[BluffTHIS!]

1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot regress back infinitely;

2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes;

3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God.

Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself.

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot progress back infinitely;

2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes;

3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes. There could be more than one first cause. (WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE SAYING, A BUNCH OF STUFF WAS JUST THERE, NO GOD NECESSARY) There is still a logical gap.

[ QUOTE ]
Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The effect without a cause stuff stems from stuff we don't understand yet. Quantum foam type stuff. Classical mechanics fall apart at that level, so Newton is irrelevant.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make any distinction I want in a premise. If it isn't valid then prove it.

[ QUOTE ]
The effect without a cause stuff stems from stuff we don't understand yet. Quantum foam type stuff. Classical mechanics fall apart at that level, so Newton is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is fun to use a lot of scientific jargon in a phrase that doesn't logically make sense isn't it? If there is "stuff" that we don't "understand yet", then you can't assert a non-understanding to make the conclusions your gave regarding quantum mechanics. This is a nice example of the logical fallacy of affirming a conclusion from a negative premise.

[David Sklansky]

If it is true that physicists think that not everything has a cause, then that particular Aquinas argument goes out the window. Not because it is logically unrigorous. But because he assumed his first premise was SELF EVIDENT. It doesn't matter that physicists have yet to totally disprove it. It only matters that they have big doubts about it. If it isn't self evident to them, then non physicists, who haven't studied the refuting evidence, should show them enough respect to believe that it is truly not self evident. Even if they don't have the expertise to realize why.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you can just assume God has always existed, I can just assume that the matter in the universe has always existed. It's that simply.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. What an atheist can't do is justify meaning, logic, purpose, morality or hope. There's no logical basis for logic. The primary reason for the difficulty is trying to derive personality from the impersonal by chance.

[12AX7]

Oh I dunno. I didn't see an "proof" of God in Thomas' writing. Just that the "first of everything"... "everyone calls God". (Just skimmed through though.)

That strikes me as a logical leap of faith. Now I'm no philosopher in the sense of those sort of arguments. So no flames please.

But Thomas' arguments are just not the same as say meeting this "God" or "the Burning Bush" or whatever you believe in and bringing back a lock of his hair, so to speak.

So I see nothing concrete in Thomas' statements. They all seem like... "Well everything had to start somewhere... that's God".

And even that begets the question... who or what created "God". LOL! Who is "God's God"? And so on.

To be honest, I discount, though don't fully reject the idea of any all good, or all loving, knowing God. To much awfulness in this world.

If there is a God. Seems he's abandoned this place at times.

I mean, if *you* had a clean sheet of paper to design on... why even design in "evil". Why does everything have to eat something else that was alive. Why are childern molested by the clergy... why don't we all just absorb sunlight for energy and so on.

So for me this God must have some very interesting explanations for things. And if they are in the area of "well because that's a physical law"... well then God isn't so boundless after all, huh?

And I won't pick on any particular religion here but most clergy sound like salesman to me, complete with canned phrases to overcome "objections" to thier particular sect. Hmm... almost like psychiatrists that peddle Prozac too! Full of good sounding explanations that on close examination are somewhat not proven.

Salesmen, shrinks, clergy... all the same thing... They mess with your head to take your money.... Ooops guess that's poker folks too. LOL!

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[David Sklansky]

"This is true. What an atheist can't do is justify meaning, logic, purpose, morality or hope. There's no logical basis for logic."

Like I said before I won't disagree. Except for the logic part. Unless you don't mean formal logic. Are you saying that we need God for the rules of syllogisms to be correct? If you do, you are contradicting yourself from back when you admitted that even God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that we need God for the rules of syllogisms to be correct? If you do, you are contradicting yourself from back when you admitted that even God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one.


[/ QUOTE ]

We need God for the rules of syllogisms to exist. There's no contradiction because the reason God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one (I'm taking your word for it, how about using 1+1 != 3?) is because He can't deny Himself. Logic is not above God but is an expression of His nature. Logic did not exist independently of God, God doesn't look up the laws of logic in some Divine Textbook written by impersonal chance. If logic is above God, He isn't God.

[David Sklansky]

"We need God for the rules of syllogisms to exist. There's no contradiction because the reason God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one (I'm taking your word for it, how about using 1+1 != 3?) is because He can't deny Himself."

OK. Thank You.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who has been watching it for many years previously has no advantage over you, the bookmaker who just walked into the room. This basically implies that nothing caused its decay.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Suppose I choose a random number X between 0 and 1. I then compute Y=-ln(X) ("ln" is the natural logarithm). I then set a timer for Y years. I tell everyone what I have done, but no one knows the value of X. If you want to place bets on when the timer will go off, then the same principle applies. If you walk into the room, you gain no advantage from knowing when I set the timer. The odds the timer will go off in the next Z hours is the same, no matter how long the timer has been going. And obviously, something caused the timer to go off. I did.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I choose a random number X between 0 and 1

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[jason1990]

X is a random variable with the uniform distribution on the interval [0,1].

[Prevaricator]

[ QUOTE ]
I can make any distinction I want in a premise. If it isn't valid then prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said before, this is altering the argument. But, if you do it this way then the argument doesn't lead to a single first cause; it just shows that there had to have been one or more things without a cause. Nothing about a single cause. If you read my post more carefully you would have realized that.

[ QUOTE ]
It sure is fun to use a lot of scientific jargon in a phrase that doesn't logically make sense isn't it? If there is "stuff" that we don't "understand yet", then you can't assert a non-understanding to make the conclusions your gave regarding quantum mechanics.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't assert much about the universe then by that logic because we don't understand most of it. When I said we don't understand it, I mean we don't understand why it happens. However, it has been observed that subatomic particles seemingly "bubble" out of nothing. Does that need a cause?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is true that physicists think that not everything has a cause, then that particular Aquinas argument goes out the window. Not because it is logically unrigorous. But because he assumed his first premise was SELF EVIDENT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I conceded in one of my posts what you are restating, namely that if what some physicists believed were true, then that truth would invalidate the major premise.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter that physicists have yet to totally disprove it. It only matters that they have big doubts about it. If it isn't self evident to them, then non physicists, who haven't studied the refuting evidence, should show them enough respect to believe that it is truly not self evident. Even if they don't have the expertise to realize why.

[/ QUOTE ]

The history of science shows that such assertions are rubbish. One only has to look at current theories of quantum mechanics now versus 50 years ago. Doubts don't equal proof, and empirical proof is the basis of science. Such doubts only caution that what is doubted *might not* be true and thus similarly the conclusions that follow from it.

And instead of using the example of a string of efficient causes, one can regress all the matter and energy in the universe, whether at the molecular or subatomic level, and even if one of the string theories is true, back to the quantum singularity that was the source of the big bang, and then ask, where did that come from? An arguement I have made before.

And the source of those doubts, quantum mechanics which cannot explain how a certain effect could have a cause because many of the laws of physics might break down at the subatomic level and there is no observable cause in our observable dimenstions, still does not change the fact that all such quanta or strings have an origin in the singularity that produced the big bang.

There is also a strong reason not to give a lot of credence to doubts about causality on the subatomic level. Applying Occam's Razor to the situation, the simplist explanation is that that the reason they cannot determine an antecedent cause for a certain effect is merely due to the uncertainty principle, which would seem to have even greater weight in those situations due to wave/particle duality.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said before, this is altering the argument. But, if you do it this way then the argument doesn't lead to a single first cause; it just shows that there had to have been one or more things without a cause. Nothing about a single cause. If you read my post more carefully you would have realized that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in no way altering the argument since you asked me to restate the syllogism, and a premise is whatever I make it, though it can be valid or invalid. Unless you can prove the major premise to be invalid, then your trying to say the two premises might lead to more than one first cause is an invalid conclusion from the stated premises which should be logically evident. What your are calling multiple first causes are merely a class of unrelated antecedent causes, each of which can be regressed back one step further as a class to a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't assert much about the universe then by that logic because we don't understand most of it. When I said we don't understand it, I mean we don't understand why it happens. However, it has been observed that subatomic particles seemingly "bubble" out of nothing. Does that need a cause?

[/ QUOTE ]

You still can't use something which is not understood, and thus a negative, as a premise from which a conclusion is affirmed. Go back to logic 101. And regarding quanta, see my response to David.

[David Sklansky]

All I said is that if someone is trying to prove to the general proposition that something is true, by using premises that everybody thinks is true, he gets thwarted if everyone no longer thinks the original premise is obviously true. I'm sure you agree with that. Do you also agree that if physicists have strong doubts about subjects like this, then uneducated people (in physics) who also probably have a lower IQ, would be presumptious to think that it is wrong to have those doubts.

[BluffTHIS!]

I wrote all of that to address the particular point in question regarding the specific doubts. And yes of course I agree that if a certain premise is *possibly* untrue that the conclusion flowing from *might* be as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you also agree that if physicists have strong doubts about subjects like this, then uneducated people (in physics) who also probably have a lower IQ, would be presumptious to think that it is wrong to have those doubts.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether "those people", who might not be physicists or have as high an IQ as them, can validly infer, albeit with lesser scientific knowledge and a lower IQ, from the history of science, that it has repeatedly been shown that the theoretic unserstanding of today on a certain topic, that has yet to be empirically proved, may well not be the theoretic understanding in a few years, and thus that the probability of such doubts not being true is significantly higher than zero. The answer is that I believe that they can make such an inference, and thus there is no reason to consider a premise invalid before such theories have been proved or disproved. This is not the same as certain theoretic points for which there already exist a large amount of empirical evidence that is less than complete.

[David Sklansky]

Aquinas himself would probably have never bothered to offer a proof based on a premise that he didn't consider self evident to everybody. Its hard enough to convince people that a chain of reasonig holds even if the premise is certainly true. And if he knew that physicists considered it far from self evident that would have been good enough for him not to pursue it.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We need God for the rules of syllogisms to exist. There's no contradiction because the reason God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one is because He can't deny Himself. Logic is not above God but is an expression of His nature. Logic did not exist independently of God, God doesn't look up the laws of logic in some Divine Textbook written by impersonal chance. If logic is above God, He isn't God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christians accept that God is all-powerful ("Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" Rhetorical question in Jeremiah 32:27).

This means that He can accomplish things that are impossible for us mortals. In fact, He should be able to do whatever He wants, even if that means contravening completely any and all previous premises or creations of His, eg destroying the Universe, stopping the sun, creating a second Earthly moon, collapsing the mysteries of the double-slit experiments, making Man immortal, dividing by zero, etc.

If Logic is part of His nature, then so is the absence of Logic. (After all, God is everyting, per 1 Corinthians 3:7)

And if violating Logic is above God, then He is not God.

Ergo, the validity of our syllogisms rests on some kind of Godly choice. We might as well stop thinking.

[David Sklansky]

"Ergo, the validity of our syllogisms rests on some kind of Godly choice. We might as well stop thinking."

A nice argument. If "ergos" are allowed by God. (Clever aren't I? Then again how do I know if my "ifs" are allowed?)

[Warren Whitmore]

In defence of Isaac Newton.

"In disputable places I love to take up with what I can best understand. Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, & for that reason to like best what they understand least." -Isaac Newton 1687

"It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." -Isaac Newton 1687

[NotReady]

There is nothing that would involve self-contradiction in the actions you suggest. All those things are possible.

But clearly He can't add 1 to 1 and get 3. He can't sin. He can't break a promise. None of these have to do with power but with His very nature.

1 Timothy 2
13If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

[ QUOTE ]

If Logic is part of His nature, then so is the absence of Logic


[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but this is gibberish.

I assume your citation of 1 Cor 3:7 was a typo?

[ QUOTE ]

Ergo, the validity of our syllogisms rests on some kind of Godly choice. We might as well stop thinking.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, the fact that syllogisms exist rest on the fact that God exists. Logic is an expression of His nature. The validity of our syllogisms rests on how close we think like God.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, the crux of our disagreement here is how much weight to give to the "doubts" of various scientists, and whether such doubts are valid enough in themselves to assign probabilities to various issues. The heart of the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis and then seek empirical evidence to validate it. And by Karl Popper's criterion, any such hypothesis that lacks falsifiability is only pseudoscience.

So many great scientists of the past have achieved some of the greatest discoveries whlie going against the consensus scientific opinion in their research. Also it is clear, in this day when so much of science depends upon large amounts of government and private foundation money, that scientists can easily get overinvested in a certain hypothesis and compromise their objectivity when facing facts that other scientists would say invalidate their hypothesis because such an admission would indicate time and money wasted and possibly endanger their careers.

As I said earlier, the history of science shows time and time again that the consensus scientific position of today is bunk tomorrow. So I really don't believe that it is necessary to call into question premises that would otherwise be considered true today just because of "doubts". Show me the proof and I'll concede, but I won't concede based on today's limited understanding of various scientific topics when there is a high probability that 50 years from now such understanding will be considered erroneous in whole or part. Giving great credence to scientific doubts without proof is really little different from the uneducated masses of old who ascribed every unexplained natural phenomena to a pantheon of deities.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
If he defines the thing that moves other stuff as God, he is simply defining God as the forces of the universe that science can already explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please prove the existence of a gravitron, and pick up your Nobel prize at the door.

[David Sklansky]

Scientists today are usually right. The fact that they are sometimes wrong is not something to hang your hat on

But you still aren't getting my precise point. If the overwheming majority of world class scientists with IQs above 150 assign a probability to something it would be presumptious for others to think that their significantly different probability estimate is somehow better.

And unless I'm mistaken, virtually all physicists are virtually positive that some subatomic particle behavior is not caused. It is my understanding that the arguments (based on both theory and experiment) for this position are so overwhelmingly strong that they eventually convinced the originally highly skeptical Albert Einstein.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

And unless I'm mistaken, virtually all physicists are virtually positive that some subatomic particle behavior is not caused.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean unknown or unpredictable, not uncaused? Can you provide a source that states the behavior is uncaused?

[Peter666]

"Everything is possible until iti s shown to be impossible. Can you show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible?"

How can a finite human than ever determine that anything is impossible? If I start banging your head against a tree to convince you that it hurts, how many times will you allow me to do it until you determine that it definitely hurts? Maybe one time it won't.

I'll be happy to perform this experiment with any skeptics.

[BluffTHIS!]

David I think on the other hand that it is presumptious to credit doubts without proof, especially since at that level the uncertainty principle looms large. You should realize too, that the reason causality "breaks down" at the subatomic level is precisely because of uncertainty and the impossibility of making accurate determination of the initial state of a system. Thus although causality cannot be proved at that level, such inability to prove causality cannot logically be taken to mean there is no causality at all.

But forget causality and say where the primordial quantum singularity that was the source of the big bang came from. Ask Stephen Hawking. His repsonse will be a 3 letter word beginning with G.

[David Sklansky]

"Don't you mean unknown or unpredictable, not uncaused? Can you provide a source that states the behavior is uncaused?"

I need a physicist to help me out here. If I'm right about this there are a million sources.

We say that a coin flip is 50% to be heads, because it is unpredictable. But there are in reality things that cause it to be heads or tails. We even know what those things are. Its just too complicated to use them to make a better prediction than 50-50.

Now lets say a friend of ours asked us to provide him a blue or a green ping pong ball and to make this choice randomly. Unbeknownst to him we make the choice by flipping a coin. In this case, to our friend, the color of his ping pong ball is not only unpredictable but he also doesn't know what caused it (namely the conditions that determined the outcome of the coin flip.) Still though, he figures SOMETHING caused it. It is just hidden to him. A hidden variable.

When subatomic particles behave randomly, eg have a plus or minus spin with a probabilty of 50%, physicists don't know why. Common sense says that the reasons why are hidden from us, just like the reason our friend's ping pong ball was green, was hidden from him. (Again the real reason was the velocity of the flip of my coin, the density of the coin, etc). That is total common sense. Maurile was being needlessly harsh to Aquinas when he took him to task for not allowinging for a different possibility. Einstein had no doubts that subatomic particles only appeared random because we did not know what really was behind its positive or negative spin or whatever. A hidden variable. To think otherwise is the height of absurdity.

But unless I am confused, physicists do think otherwise. They think that the spin or other attributes of subatomic particles have a 50-50 chance of being one or the other for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. It is NOT like a coin flip or something that is based on a coin flip. Einstein couldn't believe it either. However physicists, I am pretty sure do more than just think this. They have proved it. Or at least come within a hairsbredth of proving it. I believe even Einstein eventually reluctantly acquiesed. To find out more about these proofs you must ask someone else.

Hopefully I have not screwed up somewhere in this explanation.

[David Sklansky]

"David I think on the other hand that it is presumptious to credit doubts without proof,"

Huh? If there was a proof, there wouldn't be just "doubts" anymore.

So lets rephrase it again. Do you agree that if physicists have doubts about the fact that everything has a cause then you should too? Even if you didn't before. I didn't have doubts either but now I do because physicists say I should. I don't know the subject but their doubts mean I have doubts. Do you disagree with that stance of mine?

Anyway this is all academic I think. Because I believe that physicists don't just have doubts but are in fact almost unanamously virtually certain about out non caused events occurring. Hopefully some physicists out there will verify this.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, there was a physicist back in the 50s or 60s I think and whose name I can't remember, who posited that there was no causality at the subatomic level because everything there were not discrete entities but formed a part of a gigantic integral whole that was in a constant state of flux. However his views were not widely accepted. Meanwhile, back to the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang.

[David Sklansky]

"Meanwhile, back to the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang."

If you believe in Sklanskyanity then you believe God did it.

Sometimes it seems that people don't recognize that I jump into arguments when I believe a debater is not being logical or consistent. It has nothing to do with whether I think his conclusion is right or wrong.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Hopefully I have not screwed up somewhere in this explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea if you've screwed up but you haven't even come close to convincing me. You don't sound that convinced yourself because you seem uncertain that it's been proved or even close.

As a general proposition I don't see how you could prove anything is uncaused short of being omniscient. It basically requires proving a universal negative.

[jason1990]

One example of a hidden variable theory is where we assume that each particle has some internal mechanism, like a random number generator, that determines its behavior, but that we cannot see this mechanism -- it is hidden. The mechanism, really, doesn't have to be internal. For example, a die has such a mechanism. It's the mechanism of throwing it and letting it bounce around the table. All the variables involved in that entire process are the hidden variables. So let's assume this is our theory. Now let's do an experiment where we are going to look at 2 particles and measure their spin. Let's just say that "spin" is some abstract measurable property that can be either + or -. It turns out that it's possible to set up the particles so that they have opposite spin -- always -- this is not random. But which particle gets the + and which gets the -, this *is* random.

Now, before we measure the spins, we let the particles drift very far apart. We then measure the spin of one of the particle and find it to be +, say. We then measure the spin of the second and, without fail, it will be -. If we do our measurements in sufficiently rapid succession and our particles are sufficiently far apart, then they could not have "communicated" without communicating faster than light. So if we believe in the cosmic speed limit (i.e. if we believe in locality), then those little random number generators must have fired at the beginning of the experiment, when the particles were together, not at the moment we did our measurements.

So that's fine. So the hidden mechanism fired earlier. Well, we do a little math (not really on this experiment, but on a very similar one) and we find that the traditional laws of probability imply a certain inequality relating the long term frequencies of +'s and -'s. However, the laws of quantum mechanics imply the opposite inequality (Bell's inequality). And experiment indicates that it is Bell's inequality which we observe.

So at least one of the following must be false:
(1) Quantum mechanics can be explained by hidden variables.
(2) We live in a universe bound by the cosmic speed limit.
(3) The traditional frequency interpretation of the laws of probability is valid in the quantum setting.

Okay, normally you won't see (3) on this list. But I know at least one researcher who has seriously considered the possibility that (3) is false.

I don't know if this helps you figure out the causality issue, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[David Sklansky]

I wasn't trying to convince you. I already told you I don't know the specifics of what the physicists base their assertion on. You asked:

"Don't you mean unknown or unpredictable, not uncaused? Can you provide a source that states the behavior is uncaused?"

I tried to answer your question.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
David, there was a physicist back in the 50s or 60s I think and whose name I can't remember, who posited that there was no causality at the subatomic level because everything there were not discrete entities but formed a part of a gigantic integral whole that was in a constant state of flux. However his views were not widely accepted. Meanwhile, back to the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you talking about David Bohm?

[Jcrew]

Einstein accepted that Quantum Mechanics was the best available theory at the quantum level, but of all the bio's I read of him, he died trying to find a more complete theory and still believed in the hidden variable theory. David writes physicists as if they are a monolithic being, when in fact there is a sizeable minority of them think that quantum mechanics is a statistical approximation of whats going on. I am not sure what David is talking about proving the randomness. I think he is referring to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments) that shows evidence of non-local interaction. It's quite a leap of logic to throw out, from evidence of non-local interaction, the whole concept of casuality out the window.

[Jcrew]

[ QUOTE ]
So at least one of the following must be false:
(1) Quantum mechanics can be explained by hidden variables.
(2) We live in a universe bound by the cosmic speed limit.
(3) The traditional frequency interpretation of the laws of probability is valid in the quantum setting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it possible that the structure of space has a characterstic so every point is "close" to every other via maybe more dimensions?

[NotReady]

I did a very cursory search on the web of this issue and from what I can find the scientists who claim that the motion and location of a particle is uncaused really mean it's unpredictable. After all, from what I know of Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which is next to nothing, if it states that our observation unpredictably causes a particle to change its location and speed, it would obviously not be an uncaused change.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the structure of space has a characterstic so every point is "close" to every other via maybe more dimensions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many current string theorists believe those extra dimensions are extremely small and curled back on themselves. This would seem to imply no interaction over lareger distances. However, it seems just possible to be otherwise as you ask and perhaps would be an explanation for entanglement. Note that this, extradimensional closeness if true, would in fact seem to extend causality over even greater distances, though because such interactions are unobserable by our technology would appear to us to be merely random uncaused effects.

[pankwindu]

Whoa, diving into quantum physics to answer this one is a bit of overkill, methinks! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Aquinas' arguments are based on the assertion that infinite regression is logically impossible. That is not a valid assertion.

Consider one key statement in argument #2, starting with:
"If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause…"

Fair enough. That's basically the definition of infinity - there is no first or last.

Continuing:
"...and therefore no middle causes or final effects..."

This is where the argument falls apart. Just because there's no first or last does not mean there are no "middles". Each middle cause is caused by the preceding cause, and there are an infinite number of such causes. Again, that's basically the definition of infinity.

The conclusion of the argument is predicated on the supposed contradiction in the above "therefore" clause. But there is no actual contradiction, just a misunderstanding of the concept of infinity. Just because infinity is a difficult concept for our feeble minds to grasp, does not automatically make it a logical impossibility.

But, let's say you do not accept the above explanation, and that we grant that a first cause is in fact required. Why not state the final conclusion (again focusing on argument #2) as:
"Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls 'the Big Bang'."

Or:
"Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls 'the Universe itself'."

Or:
"Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls 'some other completely natural phenomenon arising from completely natural forces not yet fully understood by modern science'."

So, even if Aquinas' arguments were valid (which they are not), they are nothing more than wordplay and hardly "proof" of anything, much less "God".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. That's basically the definition of infinity - there is no first or last.

Continuing:
"...and therefore no middle causes or final effects..."


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't entirely agree with Craig's salam cosmological argument, but he makes a good case as to why an actual infinity is impossible. The argument is similar to Zeno's paradoxes. I don't know if anyone has countered this or not, but it's interesting to think about. This seems to be what Aquinas was pointing towards, even if he didn't quite get there. It's also interesting that Craig is basically borrowing from Muslim apologetics.

[Peter666]

Could regression be considered motion? Like a thing collapsing on itself?

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't entirely agree with Craig's salam cosmological argument, but he makes a good case as to why an actual infinity is impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find Craig's arguments any more convincing than Aquinas'. They're just fancied up versions of the same thing: "Gee, the idea of infinity is absurd, it must be impossible, therefore God started it all".

He makes the "actual infinite" sound absurd by framing it in finite physical contexts (e.g. books and library shelves) and trying to do arithmetic and comparisons on "infinity" as if it's an actual number. But timelines and cause-effect chains do not sit on a shelf, and slices of them are not manipulated/rearranged/removed like books on said shelf, so whatever perceived absurdity there is in his artificial framing does not necessarily invalidate the possibility of an "actual infinite" in the relevant context.

It starts to get real silly when one reaches the point of asserting that an actual infinite is impossible, following up with asserting that a God is necessary to resolve this, but then trying to explain how God can be omnipotent/omniscient/etc. without representing or embodying an actual infinite (which is impossible according to the original premise). I'll let The Internet tackle that one; for instance here (http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/actual-infinite.html) .

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't find Craig's arguments any more convincing than Aquinas'. They're just fancied up versions of the same thing: "Gee, the idea of infinity is absurd, it must be impossible, therefore God started it all".


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a little more than that. I believe all of Craig's examples are just a variation on the Zeno theme. I was aware of Zeno's paradox long before I became a Christian and long before I knew the name. It ocurred to me after wrestling with it for some time that one solution is that infinity doesn't exist, it's just a concept we use. I don't find the cite you gave persuasive to explain how an actual infinity could exist.

As I said, I don't use the kalam (sorry I said salam originally) argument, or any other of the traditional "proofs", though I think they are valid as evidences. But the kalam form is one of the most persuasive, and at least one premise coincides with atheist ontology - the Big Bang. Infidels.org, which puts out a lot of contras to Craig, also has some which supports the Big Bang, though, of course, claiming it is uncaused - the main article I've seen making the same claim as DS that unpredictablility = uncaused.

[The Yugoslavian]

Have you read much Continental Philosophy?

Also, it seems very strange to me that you feel Aquinas' 'proof' is strong at all. Others have already tackled that issue though.

Yugoslav

[snowden719]

In regards to the first two points, I think that Aqunias is making an unwarranted assumption that something needs first mover or a first cause, as if time extends infinitely far back, then there will always be a cause for every action without demanding some final God to get it all started. Although it's impossible to be sure if there are infinitely many moments in time stretching back to the big band or before, it still gives me enough of an argument to be skeptical of aquinas' initial premise.

In regard to the third argument, I think the easiest explanatation is to appeal to a possible worlds interpretation of modal logic. Aquinas is basically saying that if everything is contingent, then nothing could get started because every contingent object relies upon another object to come into existence, therefore there needs to be a necesarry object to start it all up. However, this argument doesn't seem to be compelling as we can just say that although there are possible worlds thar are empty, they are not the actual world. To say that something is possibly existent or contingent is merely to say that it is not existent in a counterfactual world. I can say that the existence of matter is not a necessary truth, not because there will exist some time in this world in which there is no matter, but because there exists a possible world in which there isn;t matter. The other modal argument made for God is:
1)it is possible that in another world God exists.

2)God is defined as being a necessary being (I think this is consistent with a judeo-Christian understanding of God)

3)Since God is a necesarry being, he must exist in either all possible worlds or no worlds.

4) God exists in at least one possible world

5)therefore, God exists in all possible worlds.

This is a more complex argument then what Aquinas originally came up with, and I'll leave it to y'all to figure out what is wrong with it. First to do so gets a gold star.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
&lt;argument about something existing&gt; …. That is what everyone calls "God."


[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense.

How do you go from, “something must have started everything lets call it God” to angels, life after death, miracles and Genesis is some sort of History textbook. Just labeling something God does not automatically make these things true.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

If Logic is part of His nature, then so is the absence of Logic.


[/ QUOTE ]

No offense, but this is gibberish.



[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I must elaborate.

God ostensibly created our world. By creating it, we good Christians must accept that God could also NOT create the world! In other worlds, sorry words, at the moment of creation, God could choose. He could create or NOT create our world; He could create our world like it was created or He could create it some other way.

(To argue otherwise would imply that God was somehow forced to create our world, an also create it exactly as it was created. But, then, the creation of our world would not be God's work but some other, higher-than-God mandate. Which is blasphemy in Christianity.)

Now, since God created our world, He obviously created the Logic that goes with it. We good Christians should accept that the Logic inherent in our world (eg 2+2 equals 4) was/is the creation of our Creator God, and no one else's. Certainly, not us humans!

Therefore, and the same way that God had a choice when creating our world, He had a choice when creating its Logic. Which means that God also had the choice of "another" Logic, or even non-Logic.

Why, we could have ended up in a world that would be as pious or as sinful as ours is, but where 2+2 would equal 5. (And where TJ Cloutier would crush David Sklansky in poker math.)

Ergo, non-Logic (or any kind of Logic) is part of God's abilities and nature.

Arguing otherwise is limiting an ostensibly omnipotent and unlimited God. Do not blaspheme...

[NotReady]

Your elaborate argument is nothing but Euthyphro applied to logic. It's just a statement that God CAN'T exist. Which also means neither logic nor morality can exist.

[David Sklansky]

"Which also means neither logic nor morality can exist."

OK. So what? Or to be more accurate so once and future king doesn't misinterpret, therefore what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

OK. So what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is required.

Or learn Sartre.

[David Sklansky]

Required for what?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Which also means neither logic nor morality can exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yuk.

Cant believe this isnt the assertation under attack. We have lived under god for so long that even atheists cant begin to think of a system of meaning that can be valid unless it relational to him.

Also as regard logic.

NEWSFLASH: Whole concept of logic invented by Pre Christian Pagans.

Read some fecking Aristotle.

Me on Phone to Greek Guy inventing logic.

Me: Hey greek guy better put those plans for systematic investigation of problems on the shelf.

Greek Guy: WTF

Me: Yea you have to wait about 1500 years till the birth of Christ.

GG:WTF

Me: Hes going to tell us about God, and obviously you cant have logic without God. It would be, well illogical.

GG:WTF

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Required for what?


[/ QUOTE ]

To believe that logic and morality exist.

So what?

Nothing. You are free to believe that logic and morality don't exist.

So what?

So live like it. Don't think rationally or morally.

What then?

Then Hitler was right and the allies were right and neither was right.

So what?

So nothing. Choose to be free. Choose Hitler. Choose the allies. So what?

[David Sklansky]

You finally got it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You finally got it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the help.

[The once and future king]

Both wrong. David you are just Notreadys shadow. Dosnt it bother you that your postion wouldnt be possibly without the concept of a Christian God. You are just the absence to notreadys presence.

When one kills god one must kill his absence as well. It must be as though he never existed.

Now that we can choose Hitler the possibility of ought is avaialable. Ought is available because if God existed then there would be simply be one must not choose Hitler, or one Must choose to oppose Hitler. Ought isnt possible untill we remove God.

The reasons that will determine what we ought to do then, must be manifest in the world as there is simply no other place for them to be.

They must be manifest in the world and relational to me as a subjective being in the world, as there is simply no other possible relationship.

More simply Ought is relational to choice (this is intuitive to everyone, choice must exist for there to be an ought.) and the effect of choice upon me as a relational subject. To arive at decisions about ought we must therefore examine choice and the effect of choice upon subjectivity. Or the effect of my choices upon my existance. I dont mean material consequences, but qualatitive consequences upon that which is existing, or Being.

When one does this thoroughly one arrives at firm conclusions about ought.

[David Sklansky]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyway it seems to me that it is YOU who is in lockstep with Not Ready. Because you and him both want "meaning". There is no meaning. We are all poodles. Except we have brains that teach us to postpone gratification. And maybe even derive enjoyment from watching children laugh. Or feel bad when we see someone suffer. But those feelings (with very rare exceptions) are not derived from philosophical or religious musings but are simply the product of biological evolution. Nothing more.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But those feelings (with very rare exceptions) are not derived from philosophical or religious musings but are simply the product of biological evolution. Nothing more.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that's all they are why would anyone start a thread like this?

Answered Prayers (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2917013&amp;page=1&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=1)

And why would anyone say something like this?
[ QUOTE ]

The reasons such statements are disgusting, especially when life and death is involved, is because of the tremendous insensitivety it shows toward many others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since everything is the product of evolution why be disgusted at something?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When one does this thoroughly one arrives at firm conclusions about ought.


[/ QUOTE ]

So what ought one do, choose Hitler or the allies, and why?

[superleeds]

Mr Aquinas after acheiving erection put his penis into Mrs Aquianas's vagina. After some rhtymic pumping he ejaculated and one of his sperm fertilized with an egg from Mrs Aquianas. 9 months later, little Tommy was born. (I have heard a rumor that Mr Aquianas was a bit partial to some back door action and did go back for seconds on Mrs Aquianas but I have as yet found no scientific evidence of pooper action.)

[The once and future king]

You are his shadow because he says there can only be meaning if there is a God, and you say there isnt a God so there cant be meaning. You accept his propostion

Just to make sure we are clear on another common misconception, belief does not equal subjectivity. Belief is merely one potential quality of subjectivity it is not in unity with subjectivity.

[The once and future king]

Of course there is meaning. How else are we communicating in this thread.

This meaning is like all meaning man made. To you just as is it does Notready, this somehow invalidates it.

You both accept the proposion that meaning must refer to a transcendant qualifier to be valid. You are merely arguing about the existence of said qualifier.

However it is a manifest undisputable fact that meanings have effects on the subject they are in relation to. This is surely why you argue say, that we should have a scientific outlook, for the effect it has on the subject such an outlook is relational to. I would argue differently, and I would base that arguement entirely on the examination of the effect of such an outlook.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course there is meaning


[/ QUOTE ]

You are being contradictory. You believe the universe is ultimately irrational. That is presupposition 1. You also believe meaning is possible. That is presupposition 2. 1 and 2 are contradictory.

A statement such as "How else is communication possible" not only begs the question but proves the point that the universe is not irrational.

[The once and future king]

Please explain why the universe must be rational for there to be "human" meaning. I have said that meaning is relative or much more precise, relational to the subject. This is all the meaning we need and this is all the meaning we can know.

But I have actualy expressed no opinion about the rationality or irrationality of the universe. it might be rational, but there is no way for me a monkey to know. Therefore I dont waste my time wondering. I would suspect that the idea of rationality is something monkeys invented to help deal with a universe fundemenaly beyond there comprehension.

If you were observing more closely you would observe that I have avoided makeing statements about things I cannot know. I have not said God dosnt exist, but that it best to live as though he dosnt exist because I can deduce that this is so.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Please explain why the universe must be rational for there to be "human" meaning


[/ QUOTE ]

If all is chaos, if there is no absolute system of knowledge, then no fact can be related to any other fact - there can't even BE fact.

[ QUOTE ]

I have not said God dosnt exist, but that it best to live as though he dosnt exist because I can deduce that this is so.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, if you live as if He doesn't exist you are as a practical matter stating He doesn't exist. Second, how can you know it's best to live as if He doesn't exist? Clearly, if He does exist and has communicated to us, you are wrong.

[The once and future king]

1."If all is chaos, if there is no absolute system of knowledge, then no fact can be related to any other fact - there can't even BE fact."

Explain how the above in any way precludes the possibility of human relational knowable meaning. Not that the above has anything to do with my arguements what so ever.

I dont suggest the universe is chaos. Again you are traped in the absence/presence of God mode of thinking. If God exists order if not chaos.

I simply point out the obvious that the human universe is composed entirely of the subjective and we can not as existing subjects (humans/monkeys with a slightly bigger brain) know anything beyond that. I then however validate the meanings that exist in the universe of human subjectivity and seek to examine them and there relations. I am only being practical.

You seek to constantly refer to some meta world outside this human universe even though you can have no contact with it and consequently domote the only meanings you can comprehend to meaningless. I cant think of a more stupid choice about how to live than that.


2. I have allready explained that the effect on the subject to have to obey a superior subject that is an object at the same time is basicaly to negate the subject. Or more simply if God exists it is immposible for a subject to be moral. It is immpossible if God exists to have free choice and it is immpossiible if God exists for there to be a plethora of oughts. This is because if God does exist, and he has communicated with us, then there is only one ought.

As existing subjects that ought is to give God the finger and be damned. There could be no other alternative.

I am begining to get that "Oh no I'm arguing with a Christian feeling." This is akin to the momant you feel those first wet flecks on your jeans and you realize you are pissing into the wind.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I am begining to get that "Oh no I'm arguing with a Christian feeling." This is akin to the momant you feel those first wet flecks on your jeans and you realize you are pissing into the wind.


[/ QUOTE ]


I suspect our debate is near an end. This is what people do when the sinking sand they've been standing on all their lives begins to melt away under the hurricane. No more reason and debate. Time for opinion and insult.

[The once and future king]

Better insults than self delusion. Hurricane indeed. It takes more than the suppostion that something that I cant see, cant touch, cant feel and cant in anyway prove or know must still somehow exist to make my sands sink away.

Anyway I was not insulting you. I was just colourfully pointing out the frustrating nature of debating with someone whos opinions are based on faith not intellectual investigation.

You have seen an easy way out and you have grapsed it with both hands. You choose to ignore the rest of the post which was full of debate. A debate that ultimately you can only answer the following way.

Dear God who isnt in Heaven, please make the fact that I am an slightly evolved homoniod of limited comprehension spining around a nuclear reaction on a rock in a universe so large I cant concieve it make some kind of ultimate sense that I can know.

Keep praying.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
1)it is possible that in another world God exists.

2)God is defined as being a necessary being (I think this is consistent with a judeo-Christian understanding of God)

3)Since God is a necesarry being, he must exist in either all possible worlds or no worlds.

4) God exists in at least one possible world

5)therefore, God exists in all possible worlds.

This is a more complex argument then what Aquinas originally came up with, and I'll leave it to y'all to figure out what is wrong with it. First to do so gets a gold star.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think buried in there is the argument:

Poss(Ness(God)) -&gt; there is a world where Ness(God) is true
Ness(God) -&gt; God is true in all worlds.

If that's allowed then I could also claim that god might be an impossibility and hence

Poss(Ness(not(God))) -&gt; there is a world where Ness(not(God)) is true
Ness(not(God)) -&gt; not(Got) is true in all worlds.

Therefore God and not(God) are true in all worlds.

I'm not terribly clued up on systems of modal logic but :

Poss(X) - &gt; there exists a world in which Ness(X) is true

is true for all propositions X that do not contain modal modifiers but is not true for X = Ness(P)

Make any sense?

chez

[Cerril]

Most of the posters are correct. Even most religious philosophers don't bother much with the 5 ways anymore as being especially strong. My cousin went to college in a place that emphasized them far too strongly (she later found to her regret when exposed to a larger world), possibly Franciscan but honestly I can't remember. Even most junior college intro to philosophy courses spend a few sessions discussing these arguments and why they don't hold much weight, though.

1) The idea that there needs to be a first cause is really pretty arbitrary. Non-infinite time is no more or less plausible than infinite time. It's only a human difficulty of conceiving of huge (unlimited) spaces or spans of time that stops us. Additionally, an 'unmoved mover' is a direct violation of the principle that Aquinas is trying to establish as universal and applying to everything.

2) This is based on a simplistic definition of causality that hasn't been too valid for a long time. Quantum physics and what amounts to complete randomness in the universe on some level finishes the job. In fact, the idea that it is entirely possible that in an infinite time something just 'happened' and that it's pretty much working that way all the time (though we aren't prescient enough to see the multibillion year consequences of things which have 'just happened' in recorded history, even if we could identify those events). As with the first, an infinite chain actually causes -fewer- problems than an effect with no cause, even if those things can be described in terms of a non-divine event.

3) Again, Aquinas is content to just assume that infinity cannot exist. I've never understood why he has such an easy time discounting an infinite chain; but perhaps the progress in thinking, especially in math, has led that to be an easier concept to swallow for most of us. This one you can pretty much throw out in any modern scientific world. Things just don't cease to exist.

A more interesting rephrasing of the third would discuss entropy, but that's pretty far outside the scope of Aquinas and would take more rephrasing to make even a little strong than is at first obvious.

And last, in all cases, Aquinas is making a huge assumption. I'd say that if you ask any theist if their idea of God doesn't require that he have motives, qualities (other than having acted once), or even that He still exist, you'll be met with a blank stare at best. If you say that 'yes, God may just be the Big Bang, something which happened once and has not since had any effect on the world, much less existed, and which does or did not possess any qualities such as consciousness' then you're just arbitrarily defining things as God. It's not really any stronger an argument as me pointing at my roommate's cat and saying 'there, hard evidence of the existence of God, because that being has the qualities we all agree on are what we mean when we say 'God'.

[NotReady]

That you don't think what you said is an insult is grounds enough to stop. If it wasn't, the insult in your second post cinches it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Quantum physics and what amounts to complete randomness in the universe on some level finishes the job.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quantum physics can't prove complete randomness.

You're right that Aquinas had to make an assumption. So do we all. The next step is to examine the consequences of the assumption. If you assume ultimate irrationality, how do you avoid ultimate meaninglessness?

[The once and future king]

pot meet kettle.

I didnt insult you in the first thread and after your sinking sands nonsence I then had carte blanche to express myself more bluntly.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the pissing into the wind metaphor, but in Britain it is commonly used to denote a futile exercise and isnt done so perjoratively. Please quote were I insult you specificaly in the first thread. My second thread again wasnt directly insulting it just lacked tact, you didnt deserve tact after the sinking sands debacle.

As I have said, you are taking the easy way out as you know your position isnt discursively supportable.

[JoshuaMayes]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that Aquinas had to make an assumption. So do we all. The next step is to examine the consequences of the assumption. If you assume ultimate irrationality, how do you avoid ultimate meaninglessness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why must we avoid ultimate meaninglessness?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Your elaborate argument is nothing but Euthyphro applied to logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it is not, because I followed strictly Christian premises and Christian logic, both of this world.

But kudos for the name drop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro).


[ QUOTE ]
It's just a statement that God CAN'T exist. Which also means neither logic nor morality can exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, wrong again, sorry. Logic and morality do exist! This is an undisputable fact. We understand them, use them and experience them every day. They are here -- as sure as eggs and bacon are here.

What we are arguing about is whether Logic and Morality pre-existed, i.e. if they predated Man, if they were created by God, along with our cosmos, and then the cosmos sat back and waited (only seven days waiting by one account) for Man to appear and adopt God's logic and morality.

You say Amen to that, I say never happen.

[The once and future king]

VNH.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why must we avoid ultimate meaninglessness?


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have to. We just have to give up all meaning.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Logic and morality do exist! This is an undisputable fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's hardly indisputable. Unless you're redefining terms. How can logic exist in a universe that's ultimately irrational? How can you get an ought from an is?

[ QUOTE ]

if they were created by God,


[/ QUOTE ]

They weren't created by God. They are an expression of His nature.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Logic and morality do exist! This is an undisputable fact.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's hardly indisputable. How can logic exist in a universe that's ultimately irrational? How can you get an ought from an is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic and Morality do exist in our world. Explain me how you would read Theory of Poker if Logic did not exist? Explain me why I would not kill my wife's rapist if morality did not exist?

You are saying that God created Logic and Morality -- or, rather, that they are part of His nature. But I just showed (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2954383&amp;page=26&amp;view= expanded&amp;sb=6&amp;o=&amp;vc=1) that all kinds of logic and morality (even non-logic and immorality) should be part of His nature too, if Christian dogma is followed.


[ QUOTE ]
How can logic exist in a universe that's ultimately irrational?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question assumes that there is some deterministic grand scheme (e.g. God) behind it all. Well, the world can very well be (or appear to be) irrational to us humans but this should not preclude us humans from being rational!

Logic exists because we Men try to understand our world and our existence in it, by using the abilities of our brains. (Seeing as the blood sacrifices of thousands of virgins or praying for runner-runner were not much help.)

Sklansky considers the existence of Morality a mere biological evolutionary blimp.

Others consider it a manifestation of Man's empathy to fellow Man on account of Man's profound (yet unacknowledged) realization of the randomness of this universe and Man's very existence. Consequently, the realisation of the forced and equal sharing of such horror places Man squarely in the place of any other being like him, i.e. other Men.

Man adopts Morality in his dealings with other Men because this is the only compassion Man is ever likely to get, if only by reflection, in this world.

--Cyrus

PS : Our world is not "irrational"; it's just not rational the way we humans understand ratio (reason). There might very well be a ratio in our world which we are/will allways be totally unable to comprehend.

PPS : The best we can "give" to the deists is the acknowledgement that if such a beyond-human-comprehension ratio "exists", then we could, we suppose, call it by any name we choose. "God" would be OK althought terribly misleading.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Logic and Morality do exist in our world. Explain me how you would read Theory of Poker if Logic did not exist? Explain me why I would not kill my wife's rapist if morality did not exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

If the universe is irrational the probabilities that Poker is based on are an illusion. The top card could be the ace of spades or a pink elephant. You can kill or not kill the rapist, if ultimate morality doesn't exist it doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]

Logic exists because we Men try to understand our world and our existence in it, by using the abilities of our brains.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't deny the effort. I deny the ultimate possibility if the ultimate truth is irrational. You can try to understand the world for eternity but will make zero progress if there's nothing to understand.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Logic and Morality do exist in our world. Explain me how you would read Theory of Poker if Logic did not exist? Explain me why I would not kill my wife's rapist if morality did not exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

If the universe is irrational the probabilities that Poker is based on are an illusion. The top card could be the ace of spades or a pink elephant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are not making sense. Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.

You seem to be equating "certain events are indeterministic" with "everything is goofy and we can't know anything and it's all an illusion." But that's not, in fact, what the first phrase means. It certainly doesn't imply anything about mixing up the ace of spades with a pink elephant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to assume order in the universe to believe there is order in the deck of cards. If the universe is irrational literally anything can happen. That which is irrational is unable to be determined. That is goofy.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to assume order in the universe to believe there is order in the deck of cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean exactly, but if you mean that you have to assume that no events are random, then you're wrong. It is perfectly possible for certain events (such as which atom in some group will decay first) to be random, while we know that it's the ace of spades on the top of the deck and not a pink elephant.

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe is irrational literally anything can happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the universe isn't "irrational" according to that irrelevant definition. But that sure doesn't imply that no events are random.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly possible for certain events (such as which atom in some group will decay first) to be random, while we know that it's the ace of spades on the top of the deck and not a pink elephant.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may know it now but you can't know it will remain the ace of spades if you believe in the ultimate irrationality of the universe.

[ QUOTE ]

Then the universe isn't "irrational" according to that irrelevant definition


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the definition of irrational.

American Heritage
1a. Not endowed with reason.

If the universe is not based on reason, literally anything is possible.

[m1illion]

"Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover."

1."it is IMPOSSIBLE that a thing could move itself"

Therefore a first mover is impossible.

2. "This cannot go on to infinity" why? "for if it did there would be no first mover"

see point 1

A long thread for something so self contradictory.

[The once and future king]

The fact that the universe exists is irrational. It exists purely due to a random sequence of events.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe is not based on reason, literally anything is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, as I said before, the universe isn't not based on reason under that irrelevant definition.

The subject of this tangent in this thread is whether certain events are random rather than deterministic.

You want to turn that into "then literally anything can happen," but the leap isn't warranted.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot progress back infinitely;

2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes;

3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes. There could be more than one first cause. (WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE SAYING, A BUNCH OF STUFF WAS JUST THERE, NO GOD NECESSARY) There is still a logical gap.

[ QUOTE ]
Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The effect without a cause stuff stems from stuff we don't understand yet. Quantum foam type stuff. Classical mechanics fall apart at that level, so Newton is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem you are having is that you are being argumentative rather than debating. Item #3 is really stating that there is some "thing" which must violate rule #1, thus being "supernatural", because all natural things require a cause. This "supernatural thing" is being called "God".

The follow up question is..

If there can be at least one thing that exists without cause, in what way is it proven that the set of things that exist without cause is limited to one? Or more simply "Why can't there be 32,321 "supernatural things"?

[PokerAmateur4]

Hello to this part of the forum, I'm new to S, M, P. Hopefully religious discussion won't dissuade anyone whose opinion differs from giving me poker advice.

[ QUOTE ]
"If you assume that every effect has a cause (which everyone who is not David Hume does),"

Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a more enveloping sense, wouldn't those physicist concede that even the decaying particle has a cause which created it? I.e. the big bang etc.?

Therefore I don't think that that alone disproves his proof.

Nevertheless his proof is not near convincing for me because of the above reasons against it and others.

[Peter666]

A first mover does not move itself, it is MOVEMENT itself.

[Peter666]

"Again, Aquinas is content to just assume that infinity cannot exist."

This is incorrect. Aquinas teaches that God is infinite.