Originally posted by shunyadragon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
General Theistics 101 Guidelines
This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
God and Aristotle
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostSorry, I must have missed this. Where did you acknowledge that they do, in fact, address the beginning of the universe?
"The only reference was a discussion with Dr. Rob Sheldon that described a finite universe, which is not really relevant to the Intelligent Design argument. The argument for an infinite or finite physical existence is a separate argument from the fifth way nor the modern Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute. No shoe horning found here. I believe the Intelligent Design is a modern continuation of the Aquinas argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Design, because there is not a satisfactory natural explanation for a unintelligent physical existence."
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostAn interview with Rob Sheldon.
"The only reference was a discussion with Dr. Rob Sheldon that described a finite universe, which is not really relevant to the Intelligent Design argument. The argument for an infinite or finite physical existence is a separate argument from the fifth way nor the modern Intelligent Design promoted by the Discovery Institute. No shoe horning found here. I believe the Intelligent Design is a modern continuation of the Aquinas argument for the necessity of an Intelligent Design, because there is not a satisfactory natural explanation for a unintelligent physical existence."אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostOK. I wondered if perhaps if you were considering finitude as necessarily implying temporal finitude, ie, created in time or the creation of time.
I don't think this would be considered as implied in ancient times for Aristotle or Thomas.
At least within the neo-Platonic tradition and subsequently in Christianity (not necessarily new-Platonic), one can certainly speak of God being infinitely good without the world being thought of as existing eternally.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo, but I think some do.
I agree.
OKאָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThus those who think that modern arguments for design, ie, arguments for creation in or of time by a designer, can be based upon Aristotle or Thomas are misunderstanding and misusing Aristotle and Thomas' view of final causality to imply something more than they themselves thought it implied.
I do not consider it specifically necessary the argument of final causality in Aquinas's arguments, but many apologists and theologians do argue for this necessity in Cosmological arguments, and others, and consider Aquinas's argument to argue this point.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-07-2015, 11:20 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostActually not correct in the case of the fifth was, based on the necessity of an intelligence to explain the unintelligent physical existence. The argument for Design by Aquinas's fifth way, and Modern Intelligent Design are not based on the argument for final causality.
I do not consider it specifically necessary the argument of final causality in Aquinas's arguments, but many apologists and theologians do argue for this necessity in Cosmological arguments, and others, and consider Aquinas's argument to argue this point.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostPlease show why you think Thomas' fifth way is not about final causality. I've already pointed out here and or in the other thread the language that is indeed about final causality. Why in the world are you quoting this text about a first-cause argument? See Thomas' second way for his discussion of a first, efficient cause. You should, however, read the presentation from this website of their argument from design. You will see the glaring difference from Thomas' fifth way in that it makes frequent reference to the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, and the creator. http://www.existence-of-god.com/argu...om-design.html
Just a side note on one of the problems with this argument. Science does not appeal to 'chance' to explain the nature of our universe the way it is.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-07-2015, 12:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe fifth way is the argument for the necessity of intelligence. Other arguments by Aquinas address causality. The arguments concerning ID address the necessity of Design in these events that the Universe can possibly be too many different ways, and not result in our universe with us and our planet without Intelligent Design, and not an argument from the perspective of final causality. That is a separate argument.
Just a side note on one of the problems with this argument. Science does not appeal to 'chance' to explain the nature of our universe the way it is.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostYes, other arguments from Aquinas also address causality, but Aquinas recognizes multiple types of causes, the second way addresses efficient causality. You failed to say why you cited this website's presentation of the second way about efficient causality. You've also failed to show that the fifth way is not about final causality. Just saying that other arguments address causality does not make your case. Saying that the fifth way is an argument is for the necessity of intelligence also does not make your case. Final causality necessarily involves intelligence. You should demonstrate that you in fact know what final causality is and why it is not included in Thomas fifth way. If you're not clear on what final causality is, try doing a Google search of say 'argument from final causality' or 'fifth way' AND ('final cause' OR 'final causality'), etc. In the meantime, you are making my case for me with what I have underlined above.
It is up to you to present the evidence and citations that the fifth way and modern ID arguments alone include an argument for final causality with references as I did.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMy argument at present does not address the second way.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt can hardly be expected of me to prove the negative concerning final causality and the fifth way.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI have presented my positive case with references as to the what the purpose of the fifth way and modern ID argues, and my references make no reference to the argument concerning final causality. It is up to you to present the evidence and citations that the fifth way and modern ID arguments alone include an argument for final causality with references as I did.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostPrecisely my point! So why in the world did you quote a first-cause argument, which relates to Thomas' second way? You still have not answered this question. This is why I have to wonder if you really understand final causality in Thomas.
You are the one who claimed that the fifth way is not about final causality. If you cannot support that claim, then don't make it. That too leads me to wonder if you really understand final causality in Thomas.
You have presented nothing to support your assertions!
You do not understand my position. I have never, ever said that the fifth way and modern ID arguments alone include an argument for final causality. If you want to understand what final causality in Thomas is, and the fact that Thomas' fifth way includes final causality, you need only do what I suggested in my previous post: "If you're not clear on what final causality is, try doing a Google search of say 'argument from final causality' or 'fifth way' AND ('final cause' OR 'final causality'), etc."Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-07-2015, 02:29 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI gave my sources that document this concerning the fifth way, and it does not even mention 'final causality.'
You have presented nothing to support your assertions!
I realize that any combo search will come up with a combo result. I am addressing the fifth way as a stand alone argument the way Aquinas does and the ID argument does. You made a false reference to such things as the Big Bang in the text of my reference when they did not relate at all to a final cause argument. You need to provide you case with citations, which you have failed to do.
My assertion is very common knowledge, hardly requiring any support, except for those who do not understand final causality, but you can find hundreds of supporting references if you do any of the Google searches I recommended. I also pointed you to the specific language used in Thomas' Latin to demonstrate that he is talking about final causality. But since you are having so much difficulty here, I will direct you to the article on the Medieval Theories of Causation in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:
I made no false statement about the Big Bang in the text of your reference. If you go back and read my post, you should be able to understand that I was recommending that you read your own source's discussion of the argument from design, to which I gave you the link, not their argument for a first efficient cause, which is what you still inexplicably linked to and quoted. If you want to understand their argument from design rather than their understanding of their argument for a first, efficient cause, you should read and cite their argument from design, not their argument for a first, efficient cause, which should be properly compared and contrasted with Thomas' second way, not his fifth way.Last edited by robrecht; 09-07-2015, 03:23 PM.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostI have no idea which source you are referring to here--are you talking about your most recent link to the argument about a first, efficient cause, which is what Thomas refers to in his second way?
My assertion is very common knowledge, hardly requiring any support, except for those who do not understand final causality, but you can find hundreds of supporting references if you do any of the Google searches I recommended. I also pointed you to the specific language used in Thomas' Latin to demonstrate that he is talking about final causality. But since you are having so much difficulty here, I will direct you to the article on the Medieval Theories of Causation in the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:
The site I referenced clearly considers them separate arguments. The reason I referenced the argument was clear in the post. It was to demonstrate that the argument of final causality is widely understood among apologists and theologians as the necessity of 'first cause.' I made no reference in that post that it was anyway directly related to the argument for the fifth way nor Intelligent Design.
I made no false statement about the Big Bang in the text of your reference. If you go back and read my post, you should be able to understand that I was recommending that you read your own source's discussion of the argument from design, to which I gave you the link, not their argument for a first efficient cause, which is what you still inexplicably linked to and quoted. If you want to understand their argument from design rather than their understanding of their argument for a first, efficient cause, you should read and cite their argument from design, not their argument for a first, efficient cause, which should be properly compared and contrasted with Thomas' second way, not his fifth way.
Ultimately we will have to disagree to agree here, unless you can come up with a specific reference that describes the final causality as an integral part and necessary for the argument of the fifth way or intelligent design. Being related arguments is a given, but as referenced in the site I gave, they do stand alone also as separate arguments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostEventually becomes the basis is not the argument itself.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe argument itself makes not reference to the necessity final causality.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNone of the above argues that final causality is essential or even apart of the fifth way argument.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI will grant that as whole they are related as different ways to demonstrate or prove the existence of God.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe site I referenced clearly considers them separate arguments.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe reason I referenced the argument was clear in the post. It was to demonstrate that the argument of final causality is widely understood among apologists and theologians as the necessity of 'first cause.' I made no reference in that post that it was anyway directly related to the argument for the fifth way nor Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt was a false statement, because the references you made to the Big Bang were in references to the necessity of Intelligent Design because there were too many possibilities for the outcome of the beginning of our universe for our universe to result as it is without an intelligence behind the formation of our universe. There was no reference in this source that final causality was an issue here or in the argument.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostUltimately we will have to disagree to agree here, unless you can come up with a specific reference that describes the final causality as an integral part and necessary for the argument of the fifth way or intelligent design. Being related arguments is a given, but as referenced in the site I gave, they do stand alone also as separate arguments.
While the fifth way is sometimes confused with an argument based on order and design and the need for a supreme designer, Thomas's text makes it clear that he really has in mind an argument based on final causality in nature.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TAvhcCGg7SUC&pg=PA480
This is most obvious in the case of the fifth way, which clearly depends on the notion of final causality.
https://books.google.com/books?id=drOOAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA36http://www.hprweb.com/2015/02/reclaiming-the-fifth-way/
... substances with natures always act for ends or purposes, what St. Thomas calls a final cause. We moderns who stand in the wake of a four-centuries old program to expunge the notion of formal and final causality from our conception of the natural world are likely uncomfortable with St. Thomas's insistence on the operation of purpose in nature.
https://www.catholicculture.org/cult...fm?recnum=8252
The Fifth Way, as often remarked, depends on final causality, explanation in terms of an end, of what is the point of things.
http://ftp.colloquium.co.uk/viae5.htmhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...36890#abstracthttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...bfr.12061/fullאָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Esther, 11-23-2023, 10:29 AM
|
183 responses
804 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
04-29-2024, 11:24 AM
|
Comment