Phoenix and Indy discuss God's Existence

[Soyeong]

So, can we have the vote now? Yes, God has it. But you have to admit He's a bit slippery - very mysterious. I'm off to catch some more Karen Armstrong.

It's not a matter of vote; it's a matter of interacting with the arguments. You're welcome to bring her arguments here, but you need to interact with our arguments and our objections to her arguments, or you're not worth interacting with.

[firstfloor]

It's not a matter of vote; it's a matter of interacting with the arguments. You're welcome to bring her arguments here, but you need to interact with our arguments and our objections to her arguments, or you're not worth interacting with.

I know that. I was being flippant. I am not sure mine was the best argument that can be made against Aquinas. I remember an interview between Jonathan Miller and Colin McGinn in The Atheism Tapes that discussed the proofs. The feeling expressed was that we know something’s wrong with it but it is hard to see what it is. If I find something I will come back in. Not that it would make much difference here at thought police headquarters. Incidentally, Karen Armstrong claims that Aquinas thought he had only proved the existence of a mystery, not God.

[Soyeong]

The feeling expressed was that we know something’s wrong with it but it is hard to see what it is. If I find something I will come back in.

What's wrong is that he doesn't like the conclusion the logically follows.

Not that it would make much difference here at thought police headquarters.

If you have an accusation to make, then support it with evidence.

Incidentally, Karen Armstrong claims that Aquinas thought he had only proved the existence of a mystery, not God.

Go read the Five Ways and tell me does he say, "and this everyone understands to be a mystery" or "and this everyone understands to be God"?

[firstfloor]

and this everyone understands to be God

A very weak statement. Not everyone, some people. It is a mystery for some and God for others. So you only prove God if you already believe in God.
I am looking for Aquinas's commentary on his own proofs. I think he must have said something interesting because Armstrong refers to it. Do you know it?

“Thought Police” – it’s not accusation, just saying chill out, be friendly, don’t be so combative all the time. Please.

[firstfloor]

Further to last entry: If you look at TwilightPhoenix’s discussion on Aquinas (at first discussion on Krauss’s book), he first of all he comes up with a very weird concept of what God is, the unchanging changer (try drinking a cup of coffee without thinking about it first), and then goes on to show that Aquinas only refutes Atheism. Christians then fill the empty box of mystery with the revealed God. If that is the Christian point of view (is it?), I don’t understand why you would not agree that Aquinas is simply pointing to a mystery. We could shake hands on that.

[firstfloor]

The sixth way:
“You know the formula: m over nought equals infinity, m being any positive number? Well, why not reduce the equation to a simpler form by multiplying both sides by nought? In which case you have m equals infinity times nought. That is to say that a positive number is the product of zero and infinity. Doesn't that demonstrate the creation of the universe by an infinite power out of nothing? Doesn't it?” Aldous Huxley, Point Counter Point
Any mathematicians? Apparently it is undefined.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Further to last entry: If you look at TwilightPhoenix’s discussion on Aquinas (at first discussion on Krauss’s book), he first of all he comes up with a very weird concept of what God is, the unchanging changer (try drinking a cup of coffee without thinking about it first), and then goes on to show that Aquinas only refutes Atheism. Christians then fill the empty box of mystery with the revealed God. If that is the Christian point of view (is it?), I don’t understand why you would not agree that Aquinas is simply pointing to a mystery. We could shake hands on that.

Because he's not pointing to a mystery. He's pointing to that which is the ultimate cause of all other things. The argument is not to prove Christianity but theism. It's amazing. First, you complain because the argument doesn't prove Christianity. Then you complain because you say it doesn't even prove some sort of God exists.

[firstfloor]

Because he's not pointing to a mystery. He's pointing to that which is the ultimate cause of all other things. The argument is not to prove Christianity but theism. It's amazing. First, you complain because the argument doesn't prove Christianity. Then you complain because you say it doesn't even prove some sort of God exists.

I have many complaints. I’m a bit fickle too. Does Aquinas not say, in the Summa Theologica: “We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not.” – in other words an indescribable mystery. God is simply the name you give to this mystery.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I have many complaints. I’m a bit fickle too. Does Aquinas not say, in the Summa Theologica: “We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not.” – in other words an indescribable mystery. God is simply the name you give to this mystery.

We cannot know what God is by saying positives. We can only speak of what He lacks. Note that this is something mysterious, but it is not totally unknowable.

[firstfloor]

We can only speak of what He lacks. Note that this is something mysterious .......

I’m sure you didn’t mean that God’s lacking something, as if He’s a bit disabled. I think we are back at mystery. I can cope with that. Thanks.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I’m sure you didn’t mean that God’s lacking something, as if He’s a bit disabled. I think we are back at mystery. I can cope with that. Thanks.

No. It's called the Via Negativa. Look at the world around you. Look at all the limitations that you see. Remove those limitations.

[Soyeong]

A very weak statement. Not everyone, some people. It is a mystery for some and God for others. So you only prove God if you already believe in God.
I am looking for Aquinas's commentary on his own proofs. I think he must have said something interesting because Armstrong refers to it. Do you know it?

It'd help if you read what I said:

Whatever else God is supposed to be, he is supposed to be the ultimate explanation for why things happen, so if it is proved that there is a being who explains this, then there is a being in reality that corresponds to our idea of God.

What Aquinas is saying has nothing to do with proving God if you already believe in God, but with proving a being exists that has characteristics that correspond to our idea of God. If such a being exists, then it follows that everyone should understand it to be God.

[firstfloor]

No. It's called the Via Negativa. Look at the world around you. Look at all the limitations that you see. Remove those limitations.

I looked it up. Via Negativa - According to the philosophy behind the via negativa, God is not an object in the universe and, therefore, it is not possible to describe God through words and concepts which are necessarily limiting.

If that is correct, I think we have a serious problem here chaps. Aquinas’s proofs are concerned with things that we can describe and know something about, things in the Universe such as movement, causation, perfections, etc. Having proved first mover and so on, I don’t see how you go from there to an object not in the Universe. What even does “not in the Universe” mean?

One other difficulty is that Aquinas knows the answer he wishes to arrive at, he knows that God reveals Himself in the scriptures so he is using the best science of his day to make a connection between reason and scripture.

But he admits that without that link, all he can show is a mystery.

Thanks for a very interesting discussion.

[firstfloor]

but with proving a being exists that has characteristics that correspond to our idea of God

And where to you get your idea of God from? The Holy Scriptures. Without that you do not have the first clue about first mover and so on.

[Soyeong]

And where to you get your idea of God from? The Holy Scriptures. Without that you do not have the first clue about first mover and so on.

Whatever else God is supposed to be, he is supposed to be the ultimate explanation for why things happen, so if it is proved that there is a being who explains this, then there is a being in reality that corresponds to our idea of God.

What else would you call a being that is the ultimate explanation for why things happen? This idea comes from ancient philosophers.