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/P...as_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.