Aquinas Arguments For God Don't Work

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

He seems to be saying that the infinite (God) cannot be apprehended by the finite (man). The Christian faith does not propose that God is wholly comprehensible to the human mind, but only asserts that reason can know certain things about the Cause (i.e. His existence) through His effects (i.e. created things). From ST I, q. 12, a. 12:


[quote]
Our natural knowledge begins from sense. Hence our natural knowledge can go as far as it can be led by sensible things. But our mind cannot be led by sense so far as to see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be known; nor therefore can His essence be seen. But because they are His effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from them so far as to know of God "whether He exists," and to know of Him what must necessarily belong to Him, as the first cause of all things, exceeding all things caused by Him.
Hence we know that His relationship with creatures so far as to be the cause of them all; also that creatures differ from Him, inasmuch as He is not in any way part of what is caused by Him; and that creatures are not removed from Him by reason of any defect on His part, but because He superexceeds them all.[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Essentially if you believe in a rational universe, you ought to be able to point to its cause in a rational way. If he believes knowledge can be acquired empirically (which it seems he does), I don't think it's consistent to say that Aquinas' "First Cause" is outside the realm of reason. Even Hawking would disagree - his first cause is "gravity" or something; Krauss calls it "nothing." It seems the only way out of proposing a first cause is to embrace some kind of Cartesian skepticism, denying that empirical science can know [i]anything[/i] about the universe and nature with certainty. If that's the case, it's a different debate.

Edited June 14, 2012 by thedude

[Socrates]

I think Aquinas's arguments, while valid, simply go over the head of most modern atheists, who lack the philosophical background to understand them. As God is, by nature, immaterial and outside of the material universe, rather than some physical "thing" in it, doctrinaire materialists will simply deny His existence, as God cannot be directly observed or measured by science but this is simply close-minded materialistic dogmatism, rather than proof of His non-existence.

I actually just got a book, [url="http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339710945&sr=1-1"][i]New Proofs for Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy[/i], by Robert J. Spitzer, SJ[/url], and am currently working my way through it. It's serious intellectual stuff, and not an easy read, at least for a non-astrophysicist like me, but so far it's pretty compelling, though some of the sections regarding physics went over my head. Rather than rehash Aquinas, it offers (as the title indicates) arguments from modern physics and philosophy, which may be more compelling to modern thinkers.

I haven't gotten to the philosophical section yet, but the first part concerns modern astrophysics and theories regarding the origin of our universe. In the first section, Fr. Spitzer basically argues that the current evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the universe (time/space) has a definitive origin, rather than coming out of material that has existed eternally prior to the "big bang." He discusses various "bouncing universe" and "multiverse theories," and points out the considerable problems each of these theories raise. He then discusses the so-called "anthropic principle" and the extreme mathematical unlikelihood that a universe would have the properties necessary to make the development of life possible, and the physical problems with multiverse and superstring theories, which themselves would involve considerable "fine-tuning" of properties in order to work. In short, he shows how it is much more reasonable to conclude that the universe came about from an immaterial, intelligent cause (ie. God), rather than from random material occurrences.

It's heady, involved stuff, and won't make for pithy soundbites in an internet "debate," but I'd recommend it for anyone seriously interested in these issues, particularly those of a serious physics or science geek persuasion. L_D would likely enjoy this book.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Socrates

[Hubertus]

Another book that I've heard highly recommended and been thinking about getting is [i]Modern Physics and Ancient Faith[/i], by Stephen M Barr: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268034710"]http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0268034710[/url]
From what I can tell, Barr does well to keep it in laymen's terms.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Hubertus

[Kia ora]

[quote]

[font=arial,sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.918)]Parse it out. Most theists (as Aquinas did) still posit a god being a matter of absolute. metaphysical truth, something 'real' beyond all limited perception and cognitive frames. Trouble is, to establish/access absolutes/reals/metaphysical-[/background][/size][/font][font=arial,sans-serif][size=3][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.918)]truths USING our limited perception/cognitive systems is inherently flawed; so, Aquinas and others either overlook such problems or wash them away using appeals to authoritative methods that unfortunately lack justification for such epistemic authority.[/background][/size][/font]

[/quote]

hm? i can understand what he's saying. he's expressing his skepticism about aquinas' epistemology. he thinks our human capacity to perceive and think about the true nature of reality is flawed. this isn't an isolated criticism. people have been saying this for literally millenia.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Kia ora

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1339711874' post='2444758']
I think Aquinas's arguments, while valid, simply go over the head of most modern atheists, who lack the philosophical background to understand them. .
[/quote]

It's not an atheist objection. The most damnin. Criticism I can think of pre-Frege came from Kant who was a theist and quite well grounded in philosophy. But he's probably a Christain of theliberal kitty cat persuasion to you so instead I point you to GEM Anscombe. Cambridge Professor who as an undergraduate blew CS Lewis out of the water and caused him to rewrite the section of 'Miricles' that intended to refute naturalism and a very devout Catholic. She was twice arrested for protesting abortion and wrote about the evils of contraception. She makes the same basic argument that Kant, and so many others, have made against the first cause argument only she does the service of translating the argument into modern predicate calculus and demonstrating mathematically how the argument fails. She was a Tomist so I somehow doubt that her problem was that she just couldn't grasp the subtlety of his thought.

[tinytherese]

My brain is in pain as I read this thread.

Edited June 16, 2012 by tinytherese

[Laudate_Dominum]

How's the mini-debate going, eagle dude?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1339845624' post='2445318']
It's not an atheist objection. The most damnin. Criticism I can think of pre-Frege came from Kant who was a theist and quite well grounded in philosophy. But he's probably a Christain of theliberal kitty cat persuasion to you so instead I point you to GEM Anscombe. Cambridge Professor who as an undergraduate blew CS Lewis out of the water and caused him to rewrite the section of 'Miricles' that intended to refute naturalism and a very devout Catholic. She was twice arrested for protesting abortion and wrote about the evils of contraception. She makes the same basic argument that Kant, and so many others, have made against the first cause argument only she does the service of translating the argument into modern predicate calculus and demonstrating mathematically how the argument fails. She was a Tomist so I somehow doubt that her problem was that she just couldn't grasp the subtlety of his thought.
[/quote]I thought she converted.

Her work is interesting...from what I remember she was very good at critiquing everything, but rarely offered good, solid alternatives.

[4588686]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1339988480' post='2445672']
I thought she converted.

Her work is interesting...from what I remember she was very good at critiquing everything, but rarely offered good, solid alternatives.
[/quote]

she did convert. She converted to Catholicism. I don't understand your comment. She was good at critiquing. She made several important contributions to philosophy but I'm not sure I could offer a breakdown of her critiques to positive solutions ratio. But even if she never did anything but critique the work of others that wouldn't change the fact that the first cause argument of Aquinas makes a very basic and fundamental error of logic. She obviously didn't have anything against Aquinas as she was part of the Tomist revival, but his argument is pretty obviously wrong. Maybe a valid first cause argument could be presented. But the one presented by Aquinas most definitly isn't

[qfnol31]

Shooting down arguments is easy work. Coming up with your own system is real work.

Your point is well taken, though, and I've known several Thomists or medievalists who agree with Anscombe.

[Hubertus]

Anscombe sounds very interesting.. I'll have to read more about her. I'm still having difficulty finding a thorough and non-hand-waving refutation of Aquinas' arguments (from anyone), though.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1339933448' post='2445494']
How's the mini-debate going, eagle dude?
[/quote]





[quote]
[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][left][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.699219)]How does one access/process absolute/external truths using non-absolute/non-external means? How would someone justify this verificational method?[/background][/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=arial, sans-serif][size=3][left][background=rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.699219)]Feser seems to be assuming that Aquinas's work hasn't been dealt with... when it most certainly has for CENTURIES now; what do you think hasn't been addressed by Dawkins and others? ...[/background][/left][/size][/font][/color]
[/quote]

Basically, I need to learn more philosophy, read Aquinas....
Argument is winding down because I'm unable to respond with finely tuned answers and youtube has limited space.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1340018028' post='2445739']
she did convert. She converted to Catholicism. I don't understand your comment. She was good at critiquing. She made several important contributions to philosophy but I'm not sure I could offer a breakdown of her critiques to positive solutions ratio. But even if she never did anything but critique the work of others that wouldn't change the fact that the first cause argument of Aquinas makes a very basic and fundamental error of logic. She obviously didn't have anything against Aquinas as she was part of the Tomist revival, but his argument is pretty obviously wrong. Maybe a valid first cause argument could be presented. But the one presented by Aquinas most definitly isn't
[/quote]
Since I can't seem to find her comments anywhere online, would you mind explaining her critique? I guess I thought there's was an argument over naturalism (this was in reference to his book Miracles), not the cosmological argument.

Edited June 18, 2012 by thedude

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1340062255' post='2446041']
Basically, I need to learn more philosophy, read Aquinas....
Argument is winding down because I'm unable to respond with finely tuned answers and youtube has limited space.
[/quote]
Oh my God, it's a youtube debate? Run.

Just about the worst forum for an intelligent debate of all time. Props for giving it a go.