Phoenix and Indy discuss God's Existence

[firstfloor]

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

I would call it a mystery. An unsolved puzzle. The proofs by themselves indicate something mysterious and nothing else. Five proofs, why not five mysterious things? Why not five gods? There is no logical connection to any philosophy that I can see.

[firstfloor]

It’s gone quiet.
Will Ye No Come Back Again?
Did I win the argument? If you think you might agree with me, please feel free to say so. By the way, my favourite historian of religion deals with this issue very well and concisely in her lecture “An Evening with Karen Armstrong”. Christians would learn from it why they are doing Christianity all wrong. Life changing, I promise.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

No. No argument won. Some of us just have these things called "lives." I happen to have a Mrs. and consider spending time with her a priority.

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.

Correct.

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?

It means "Not in the universe." The universe does not contain God. Aquinas reasons from what we do see to what we don't see. Scientists do that regularly with particles that we cannot see.

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.

No. He's using metaphysics. Also, this is irrelevant. It's whether the argument works. If Aquinas already believes God exists, that does not make the argument invalid.

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

Thanks for a very interesting discussion.

No. Not a mystery. God. He can show some things about God. Maybe you should actually read the God section in the Prima Pars.

[firstfloor]

OK. We will have to agree to disagree. I am moving on to a roundtable discussion among authors Jennifer Hecht, Elaine Pagels, Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Tyler Volk, and Robert Wright on the Evolution of God(s).
Have a great weekend.

[Cerebrum123]

It’s gone quiet.
Will Ye No Come Back Again?
Did I win the argument? If you think you might agree with me, please feel free to say so. By the way, my favourite historian of religion deals with this issue very well and concisely in her lecture “An Evening with Karen Armstrong”. Christians would learn from it why they are doing Christianity all wrong. Life changing, I promise.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you need to back off on using Karen Armstrong so much. She has said things that show that she is either completely incompetent as a scholar, or that she is simply dishonest. I think that even Bart Erhman would be a better scholar for you to use(there are a lot of people here that do better than him, but i digress). Using her as your primary source isn't going to get you any points. I recommend you find a better scholar. I understand that you like what she says, and this is likely because she agrees with you, but trust me, there has GOT to be a better source out there that agrees with you. I am really just trying to help.

[firstfloor]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but ...................

What an interesting comment. I am not sure what to say about it at the moment. It is good to examine a range of opinions.

[Soyeong]

I would call it a mystery. An unsolved puzzle. The proofs by themselves indicate something mysterious and nothing else.

Yes, this being is a mystery, but it is not entirely a mystery because we have used logic and reason to deduce certain "clues" that tell us something about the nature of this mystery. So, what does this "clue" that this being is the ultimate explanation for why things happen tell us about it?

Five proofs, why not five mysterious things? Why not five gods?

Aquinas argues that this being is necessarily unique because it is logically impossible the more than one being to have maximum transcendentals. It is similar to how heat and light are different description of the same fire. However, even if this argument proved the existence of multiple gods, it would conflict with Christianity, but it would be no less interesting.

Did I win the argument? If you think you might agree with me, please feel free to say so. By the way, my favourite historian of religion deals with this issue very well and concisely in her lecture “An Evening with Karen Armstrong”. Christians would learn from it why they are doing Christianity all wrong. Life changing, I promise.

It is impossible for you to refute and argument that you do not understand.

[firstfloor]

It is impossible for you to refute and argument that you do not understand.

You know I could repeat that back to you, don’t you? Moving on, I am composing a short message about Romanticism (about 1800 – 1840) and wondering where to put it. It features this wonderful quotation - Denis Diderot (1713 – 84): “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

[ApologiaPhoenix]

You know I could repeat that back to you, don’t you? Moving on, I am composing a short message about Romanticism (about 1800 – 1840) and wondering where to put it. It features this wonderful quotation - Denis Diderot (1713 – 84): “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

Except Soyeong understands the argument.

[Soyeong]

You know I could repeat that back to you, don’t you? Moving on, I am composing a short message about Romanticism (about 1800 – 1840) and wondering where to put it. It features this wonderful quotation - Denis Diderot (1713 – 84): “Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

You could repeat it back to me, and it would still be good advice to keep in mind because there are no doubt many other arguments that I do not understand and therefore am unable to defend or refute. This also goes back to what AP was doing with Indy at that start of the thread by trying to make sure that he understood the argument before discussing objections to it. If you want to agree to disagree, then that's up to you, but don't pretend that you have logical reasons for disagreeing with the argument.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think that Christianity and other religions, would be much better if they took a leaf out of Karen Armstrong's book. My current fixation you understand.

Ewww... I think Christians would be better off taking a page out of Bart Ehrman's book.

[lilpixieofterror]

What happened to Christian charity?

So in your view, 'Christian charity' is not saying you don't know what you're talking about. Gosh... Jesus, Paul, or Peter must not know much about Christian charity.

[firstfloor]

but don't pretend that you have logical reasons for disagreeing with the argument.

Dear Soyeong,
I’m not pretending. I really think that Aquinas’s five ways, by themselves do not prove a single deity for the reasons given above. I am equally sure that you do not agree with me and there is no realistic chance of us ever having agreement. For the final time I would explain my reasoning this way. I read the five ways without reference to any other theology either in scriptures or the Summa Theologica. This is fair because the proofs are not proofs unless they can stand on their own feet. Otherwise you need to set out and prove the preliminary arguments.

If you have ever studied mathematics you would know that it is mainly a long series of connected theorems and proofs beginning with some very elementary proposition about numbers.

Aquinas links the five ways by saying “and this everyone understands to be God” without any justification. The proofs do not show unmoved mover = first cause = necessary, non-contingent being = most perfect being = intelligent designer. This assertion also makes no sense unless you already buy into the common religious theological concept of God. If like me you take the position that supernatural objects do not appear to exist or do not exist, the statement “and this everyone understands to be God” is meaningless.

So, from my point of view, the five ways set up a puzzle. To be fair about the matter, you need also to look at the counter arguments with equal enthusiasm otherwise your thinking may be biased. You might start with Bertrand Russell or David Hume.

[firstfloor]

Ewww... I think Christians would be better off taking a page out of Bart Ehrman's book.

Bart is good. I also really enjoyed listening to Dale Martin (NT) and Christine Hayes (Hebrew Bible) at Open Yale courses and was blown away by Shaye Cohen (Harvard) who I found on ItunesU (Hebrew scriptures in Judaism and Christianity).

[firstfloor]

So in your view, 'Christian charity' is not saying you don't know what you're talking about. Gosh... Jesus, Paul, or Peter must not know much about Christian charity.

No, it just felt like I was getting done over.