Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems with Thomas Aquinas aguments for the existence of God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Problems with Thomas Aquinas aguments for the existence of God

    There are many problems with the arguments proposed by Thomas Aquinas arguments for the existence of God including the problem that they may be circular. Let's explore the problems.

    For example:

    A.The Argument from Efficient Cause: 1.There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
    2.It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
    3.To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
    4.If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
    5.Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

    I like Bertrand Russell response:

    “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, ‘How about the tortoise?’ the Indian said, ’Suppose we change the subject.’ Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, and Other Essays (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 6-7.

    I like the answer Tortoises (Gods) all the way down.

    The problem with this argument is that you must assume at the beginning of the argument that God exists as a 'special case exception' as not needing a cause.

    There are more problems with this argument, which I will add in further posts.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-22-2015, 04:28 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    The argument, which I do not consider valid, by the way, does not assume the existence of God, but rather the 'idea' of such a being, namely an uncaused being. The flaw in the argument, from a modern perspective, is the premise that there cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. In principle, if I remember correctly, Thomas does admit that from a rational perspective alone, that the contingent/created world could have existed, nonetheless as created, from eternity, but he thinks this is contradicted by revelation, so it is a nonstarter as far as he is concerned. Insofar as Thomas accepts revelation, one can claim that Thomas' ultimate conclusions are circular in that sense, but it was not his intent to prove revelation apart from revelation, merely to incorporate Aristotelian reasoning as far as far he could.
    Last edited by robrecht; 08-22-2015, 04:56 PM.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      The argument, which I do not consider valid, by the way, does not assume the existence of God, but rather the 'idea' of such a being, namely an uncaused being. The flaw in the argument, from a modern perspective, is the premise that there cannot be an infinite regression of efficient causes. In principle, if I remember correctly, Thomas does admit that from a rational perspective alone, that the contingent/created world could have existed, nonetheless as created, from eternity, but he thinks this is contradicted by revelation so it is a nonstarter as far as he is concerned.
      I see no difference between the assumption of the 'existence' of such a being and the 'idea' of such a being, namely an 'uncaused being.' The priori assumption must be made either way for the argument to work.

      If this argument is so weak then in quick order we will move on to the other arguments.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-22-2015, 04:59 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        We observe in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. Such things could not always exist, though, because something that could possibly not exist at some time actually does not exist at some time. Thus, if it is possible for everything not to exist, then, at some time, nothing did exist. But if nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. Yet it is absurd to claim that nothing exists even now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary. Now, every necessary thing has its necessity caused by something else or it does not. Since it is impossible for there to exist an infinite series of causes of necessary things, we must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself. People speak of this thing as God.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          I see no difference between the assumption of the 'existence' of such a being and the 'idea' of such a being, namely an 'uncaused being.'
          Really? The first is circular reasoning if the intent is to rationally prove the existence of God. The second is not circular. Thomas rejected the ontological proof for the existence of God. The idea itself does not in any way implicitly necessitate the actual existence of God.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Really? The first is circular reasoning if the intent is to rationally prove the existence of God. The second is not circular. Thomas rejected the ontological proof for the existence of God. The idea itself does not in any way implicitly necessitate the actual existence of God.
            Than the argument fails and we will move on. I see no assumption of the 'idea' in the argument that could be distinguished from. the assumption of the 'existence' of such a being.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-22-2015, 05:41 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              We observe in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. Such things could not always exist, though, because something that could possibly not exist at some time actually does not exist at some time. Thus, if it is possible for everything not to exist, then, at some time, nothing did exist. But if nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. Yet it is absurd to claim that nothing exists even now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary. Now, every necessary thing has its necessity caused by something else or it does not. Since it is impossible for there to exist an infinite series of causes of necessary things, we must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself. People speak of this thing as God.
              Yes, people speak of this thing as God. The assumption in this argument is that God is the uncaused cause of all of existence, which makes it circular.

              If Natural Law has existed infinitely then it could potentially be the uncaused cause of all existence.

              There is no evidence that in the past nothing existed. This would be an argument for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo.' This would be another priori assumption for the existence of God.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-22-2015, 05:41 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Than the argument fails and we will move on. I see no assumption of the 'idea' in the argument that could be distinguished from. the assumption of the 'existence' of such a being.
                You can move on and discuss whatever you like, but it is very surprising that you cannot see the importance of the distinction and its relevance to your contention of circularity. Thomas believes in God and in revelation, but this particular proof (actually 'way') of his is not circular in the sense you have claimed.
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Yes, people speak of this thing as God. The assumption in this argument is that God is the uncaused cause of all of existence, which makes it circular.

                  If Natural Law has existed infinitely then it could potentially be the uncaused cause of all existence.

                  There is no evidence that in the past nothing existed. This would be an argument for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo.' This would be another priori assumption for the existence of God.
                  Thomas does not argue for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo; he accepts it as a matter of faith. He thinks that an uncaused cause of all existence, if indeed such a thing can be reasonably inferred from existence using Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, is indeed what people refer to when they speak of God.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Thomas does not argue for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo; he accepts it as a matter of faith. He thinks that an uncaused cause of all existence, if indeed such a thing can be reasonably inferred from existence using Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, is indeed what people refer to when they speak of God.
                    I understand that. That is one of the reasons why ancient arguments based on Aristotelian logic and metaphysics like those of Thomas Aquinas are flawed. If such beliefs are 'reasonably inferred' they become assumptions for old arguments.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Yes, people speak of this thing as God. The assumption in this argument is that God is the uncaused cause of all of existence, which makes it circular.

                      If Natural Law has existed infinitely then it could potentially be the uncaused cause of all existence.

                      There is no evidence that in the past nothing existed. This would be an argument for the necessity of 'creatio ex nihilo.' This would be another priori assumption for the existence of God.

                      You missed the point, if it is possible for something to go out of existence then it will. And if it that is the case then at some point nothing existed. For you to counter the argument you have to show that it impossible for things to go out of existence.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        We observe in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, as they come into existence and pass out of existence. Such things could not always exist, though, because something that could possibly not exist at some time actually does not exist at some time. Thus, if it is possible for everything not to exist, then, at some time, nothing did exist. But if nothing ever did exist, then nothing would exist even now, since everything that exists requires for its existence something that already existed. Yet it is absurd to claim that nothing exists even now. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must be something the existence of which is necessary. Now, every necessary thing has its necessity caused by something else or it does not. Since it is impossible for there to exist an infinite series of causes of necessary things, we must conclude that there is something that is necessary in itself. People speak of this thing as God.
                        The mistaken assumption here I think is that the things that come into existence are things in themselves rather than being parts of a whole. Being a part of a whole, a thing is temporal only with respect to itself, as if it were a thing in itself, but with respect to the whole, the thing, being understood as a part of the whole, is eternal, because in substance it still exists. Being then that there is only one thing, there being no distinction between it and the many forms it takes, the forms can then be understood to be the cause of themselves.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You missed the point, if it is possible for something to go out of existence then it will. And if it that is the case then at some point nothing existed. For you to counter the argument you have to show that it impossible for things to go out of existence.
                          Whats impossible is for the substance of things to go out of existence. From something, nothing doesn't come!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Whats impossible is for the substance of things to go out of existence.
                            How do you know that?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I understand that. That is one of the reasons why ancient arguments based on Aristotelian logic and metaphysics like those of Thomas Aquinas are flawed. If such beliefs are 'reasonably inferred' they become assumptions for old arguments.
                              Epistemology is the other side of the coin of metaphysics, which is to say that most epistemic 'proofs' entail at least implicit metaphysical presuppositions. To avoid such is to adopt a radical skepticism that can never be truly overcome by pure logic. I happen to believe that all reasoning, insofar as it is necessarily informed by perception, experience, intuition, and implicit presuppositions, is unavoidably circular at some fundamental levels, but in a way that we have learned to trust in our daily lives. To evaluate Aristotle or Thomas from a perspective of a modern metaphysical is anachronistic just as post-Tridentine and modern apologetic attempts to rely on Thomistic 'arguments' are also hopelessly anachronistic. Thomas' contribution was the systematic integration of several streams of thought, one of which was a medieval interpretation of Aristotle, into the Catholic intellectual tradition, nothing more, nothing less.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X