/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10917072]

Is there any argument against Aquinas and his Five Ways?

[Anonymous No.10917086]

>>10917072
Kant "dismisses" some of his claims in his antinomies in the critique of pure reason

[Anonymous No.10917098]

>>10917072
Also
>Five Ways
Aquinas just talks about the concept of infinity and repels it, no ground to cover here

[Anonymous No.10917102]

>>10917086
By ""dismisses"" do you mean "utterly blows the fuck out of"?

[Anonymous No.10917112]

>>10917102
no.

Kant makes the claim that there are certain contradictions, which he calls anitnomies, which necessarily arise if we project reason on our understanding of the world, i.e. "everything has a cause" -> "there must be a first cause"="ther cannot be a first cause" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant%27s_antinomies

[Anonymous No.10917140]

I've never seen an objection to the first or second way that wasn't based on a misunderstanding of the argument.

[Anonymous No.10917142]

>>10917112
You don't need to link me Wikipedia, I'm familiar with the antinomies. I'm asking what your problem is with them, if you have one.

[Anonymous No.10917147]

>>10917140
How so?

[Anonymous No.10917150]

>>10917142
i have no problem with them, but they articulate the problem of infinity

[Anonymous No.10917153]

>>10917147
Not that anon but people who meme it into things like Aquians saying "everything has a cause" or that empirical claims refute his metaphysical ones.

[Anonymous No.10917172]

>>10917147
A common one is people assuming Aquinas is talking about linear causality going back in time to a beginning of the universe. Aquinas thought the universe was eternal but it ultimately is irrelevant to the argument because he's talking a hierarchical causal series happening in the now. Another one that's particularly annoying is people saying it doesn't prove a theistic personal God. Well no shit, that's because the argument isn't trying to prove a theistic personal God. Just A God with certain characteristics like being one, eternal, immutable, and so on. It's like criticizing the theory of gravity for not explaining how volcano's work.

[Anonymous No.10917190]

>>10917172
>Aquinas, circa 1265, just after abstracting causality from time

[Anonymous No.10917201]

>>10917172
Could you elaborate on the hierarchical series please? :) specifically why it differs from a linear temporal one and how aquinas uses it in his five ways. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.10917221]

>>10917201

A linear causal series would be like dominoes knocking each other down. One thing causing the next to fall which then causes the next and so on. A hierarchical series would be like somebody holding a stick pushing a rock. The rock can only move because the stick that's causing it is itself getting causal power by the hand that holds it which gets it's causal power from the brain and so on. Such a causal series is happening in the now or instantaneously.

[Anonymous No.10917241]

>>10917221
Thanks for the distinction bud

[Anonymous No.10917251]

>>10917221
>One domino causes the next to fall, which causes the next to fall, etc.
>The brain causes the hand to move, which causes the stick to move, which causes the rock to move
Sorry, what's the distinction?

[Anonymous No.10917263]

>>10917251

You can trace a linear causal series through the past or back in time while a hierarchical series happens all at once or continuously. Aquinas believed and argued that God sustains our existence by being the ultimate source of all causal power rather than somebody who just kicked the first domino over.

[Anonymous No.10917279]

>>10917263
But the act of pushing over a stone with a rock isn't properly instantaneous, it still takes place over a small period of time, i.e, the amount of time it takes to exert an amount of force on the rock sufficient to push it over.

[Anonymous No.10917282]

>>10917279
*stone with a stick, that is

[Anonymous No.10917302]

>>10917279

I'm talking about the moment everything is moving but it really doesn't matter. If the analogy doesn't help you understand hierarchical causality than forget about it and find somebody else to explain it.

[Anonymous No.10917320]

Last I heard the first 4 have major flaws and the 5th is the only one worth talking about

[Anonymous No.10917326]

>>10917320
actually I meant the 4th is the only one worth thinking about

[Anonymous No.10917355]

Process theology

[Anonymous No.10917380]

>>10917072
>it's another 'pencil-necked incel want-to-be "intellectuals" on a Bugchasers and Pozzers Anonymous forum try to disprove and think they can compete with a man who was one of the most learned and intelligent men in his field to ever live, who devoted every waking moment of his entire life to ceaseless and rigorous processes of logical reasoning and study the breadth of which it may not even be possible in modern life to emulate, by regurgitating what they learned from their six (more likely two) years of philosophy classes taught by modernity-raped intelligentsia who have mentally masturbated themselves into intellectual-impotence and endless cycles of obfuscation for the past four centuries, resulting in achieving only the most vapidly epidermal misunderstanding of the primary texts but there's no one to call them out on their bullshit so they keep teaching for the rest of their life since hey, I deserve tenure and it feels great to babysit all of the spoiled bourgeois faggots who eat everything I say up' thread
it's all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.10917387]

He was a fat fuck.

[Anonymous No.10917391]

Tfw th Summa is too expensive to buy

[Anonymous No.10917395]

>>10917380
fucking based

[Anonymous No.10917402]

>>10917380
Who hurt you, anon? Was it Kant?

[Anonymous No.10917413]

>>10917391

The ebook is practically free.

[Anonymous No.10917418]

>>10917380
based

[Anonymous No.10917420]

>>10917380
>Intellectuals I agree with devoted every waking moment to ceaseless and rigorous processes of logical reasoning
>Intellectuals I disagree with are mental masturbaters and obfuscators
I agree that it's tiresome

[Anonymous No.10917463]

Is there any empirical link or component of them?

[Anonymous No.10917466]

>>10917463
>m-m-m-muh empiricism
>what is a deductive argument

the crutch of brainlets

[Anonymous No.10917485]

>>10917466

Everybody knows that all real truth needs to be verified by the scientific method except for this statement which is exempt for some reason.

[Anonymous No.10917491]

>>10917466
Im not saying his false or wrong, Im just curious as a lot of deductive arguments have an empirical basis

[Anonymous No.10917506]

>>10917491

In one of Ed Feser's version of the cosmological argument he starts by making an observation of a cup sitting on a table. Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? If so then yeah, Aquinas starts with the observable existence of change or motion and works off of that.

[Anonymous No.10917508]

>>10917485
I never said the scientific method is the only way or even the best way to determine truth.

[Anonymous No.10917540]

>>10917506
>Ed Feser's version of the cosmological argument
Im just asking about Aquinas. The reason Im asking about this empirical stuff is that people seem to derive metaphysical principles based on analogies to things they observe and that consequently one of the good things to do before getting into things deeply is just seeing whether these initial observations are correct.

[Anonymous No.10917548]

>>10917380
>"Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me."

[Anonymous No.10917712]

>>10917072
What I've seen is generally immature misunderstandings of his point, but the objection I'd consider most serious is the denial basic requirements of his point. The cosmological argument is practically airtight- if you allow for Aristotelian monism and causation.

This can be argued, obviously, but any specific argument on those terms would need reasons for the corresponding view of the world and human experience- and preferably a better way to avoid unexplained complex facts or the mind-body problem. Ultimately comes down to choice of metaphysics- Feser as a supporter of Aquinas', for example. I'd love to see defenses of alternative systems, though, if any of you know good ones.

[Anonymous No.10917722]

>>10917485
verify the scientific method then

[Anonymous No.10917750]

>>10917722

That's the joke

[Anonymous No.10917755]

>>10917722
bruh, i dont know why I didnt see the end of your sentence lol
sowwy

[Anonymous No.10917759]

>>10917755
for
>>10917750

[Anonymous No.10917762]

>>10917759

Don't ever (you) me again

[Anonymous No.10917976]

>>10917712
what is Aristotelian monism?

[Anonymous No.10918024]

>>10917072

For ways 1-3

[Anonymous No.10918026]

>>10917072

For way 4

[Anonymous No.10918034]

>>10917072

For way 5

[Anonymous No.10918070]

>>10918024
>>10918026
>>10918034

Can you explain a bit more / give a general overview of what his argument against them are? Is it a refutation or just a critique?

[Anonymous No.10918075]

>>10917153
>or that empirical claims refute his metaphysical ones.
Because they do.
>b-b-but muh metaphysics is prior to physics
Yeah yeah, ideally, but nothing is more common than for so-called metaphysics to overstep its bounds and move into the territory of bad physics.

[Anonymous No.10918096]

>>10918070

They don't have any answer for you because Kant argued against a strawman but they don't know that. They've just heard other people say Kant refuted Aquinas and assume its true.

[Anonymous No.10918098]

>>10917380
>you literally cannot ever disagree with Aquinas because he studied way more than you
>even if you're also an academic who devoted their entire life to philosophy you can't disagree because your mind is just fucked by modernity and you don't really understand Aquinas the way I, a pencil-necked incel want-to-be "intellectual" on a Bugchasers and Pozzers Anonymous forum do
so this is the power of apologetics

[Anonymous No.10918102]

>>10918075
>>10918098
You can leave now

[Anonymous No.10918106]

>>10918098
it's almost as if you're supposed to provide arguments and evidence demonstrating your understanding of the thinker you're disagreeing with whoaaaaaaaaaaa so this is the power of not being a brainlet

[Anonymous No.10918108]

>>10918102
Don't worry, I am.

[Anonymous No.10918116]

>>10918106
Nope, according to anon all your arguments are for naught because there's no way your tiny intellectual dick could ever measure up to the gargantuan cock of Thomas Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.10918137]

>>10918096
Thats one of the problems I have when dealing with this area of philosophy only scholastics seems to actually understand it properly so its extremely difficult to get any quality outside opinions or criticisms of it all of which gets complicated by the religious bias for and against it.

>>10918075
>Because they do.
Can you validate empiricism empirically?

[Anonymous No.10918145]

>>10918116
that's accurate tho
u mad, dicklet?

[Anonymous No.10918158]

>>10917172
He sketched out some observations and called it god?

[Anonymous No.10918165]

>>10917380
Cringe

[Anonymous No.10918173]

Why are there so many Medfags coming out of the woodwork nowadays?

[Anonymous No.10918227]

>But it doesn't prove that God is the Judeo-Christian deity
I don't give a shit. The point is God exists.
>But what caused God?
Misreads the argument.

It's been almost 800 years since Tom wrote the Summa, and these are still the best arguments atheists can come up with? Pathetic!

[Anonymous No.10918266]

>>10918227
>and these are still the best arguments atheists can come up with? Pathetic!
I hope you arent basing this off of 4chan posters and Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.10918272]

>>10918070
>>10918096
>>10918137

Give me some time.

[Anonymous No.10918275]

>>10917112
Aquinas never said everything has a cause.

[Anonymous No.10918279]

>>10918272
YES death mask anon is back.

[Anonymous No.10918280]

>>10917976
The idea that we exist in mind and body as a single object, analogous to objects and their forms. It's a rather fruitful avenue for disageement, honestly, especially combined with his notions of causality. Not sure why most refutations are so banal.

>>10918024
>>10918026
>>10918034
Can you provide a summary of his arguments? From what I've seen they don't hold water without some Kantian metaphysical and epostemological axioms, which Aquinas would deny. Then we can start at the beginning if we have to, but it beats arguing past each other.

[Anonymous No.10918286]

>>10917279
Think of a cup being 2 feet from the floor by being on a table. For the cup to be 2 feet from the floor the floor itself needs to be stable. Or to illuminate the cup a light hanging above it is held up by a chain, which must be attached to the ceiling receiving power.

[Anonymous No.10918782]

>>10918070

The critique includes the refutation. Kant argues that space and time are your mind at work - that the physical universe that human minds experience cannot exist apart from those human minds experiencing it.

But there is no quick summary of Aquinas in combination with Kant. They're among the greatest and most systematic thinkers produced by western philosophy.

So for those who truly want to understand, I'll put some work into reconstructing what a debate might have looked like, and will try to address the suggestions and criticisms of others.

But if you want to understand what's written, you'll have to be ready, in principle, to read much of it twice, and to accept information that doesn't at first seem related to the questions you're trying to answer.

I say this to prepare the willing for kind of a fuckton of text.

[Anonymous No.10918793]

>>10918070

You are a human knower who perceives a world of orderly, predictable, general laws of nature (like causality of events, divisibility of space, mathematical formulas applying to all objects). Your mind has undeniable certainty of these laws of nature, and this is only possible if your mind is the author of these laws; the natural world is an appearance within your mind, and its orderliness, its form, is contributed by your mind - unconsciously, automatically. Your mind is a power of ordering, and it orders raw sensory input into colors and sounds and touchings and tastes and smells, yielding a universe of objects that look and sound and feel and taste and smell in distinct ways.

All objects behave according to general laws (they all act over time, they are all caused to exist by something else, they are all in turn causes of further effects, they all occupy space, they all have particular colors and textures and shapes and other sensory data that fill space and time).

[Anonymous No.10918799]

>>10918070

But all objects also have specific traits that make them individual, unique (different objects occupy their own areas of space which no other object can occupy, different objects come into existence due to distinct causal histories, your desk has a different shape and color and smell compared to your phone and your window).

In summary, despite all the the different colors and shapes and spaces and causal histories of the objects of the world, they all share some basic, unchanging similarities defined by the laws of space, time, and logic, which Kant associates with the laws of mathematics and physics. These laws are the laws of your mind. The universe is a mental appearance, and its constant laws are imposed by the human mind - and since each human has a mind that works fundamentally the same as all other human minds, all humans agree on the fundamental characteristics of nature, each contributing their own private mental representations to a cooperative interpretation of a shared world.

For yet more on Kant:

>>/lit/thread/7280175#p7305074

[Anonymous No.10918802]

>>10918070

In the first way, Aquinas argues that any change in nature must be explained by some cause that already has actualization, otherwise the change could never be actuated. This cause does not have to precede the effect in time; if we imagine taking a given moment, a time-slice of the universe, that time-slice must have some basis that explains the entire structure of causal dependence that holds in that moment. For example, in a single moment: human posture is causally allowed by the resistance of the earth's surface, the rigidity of the earth's surface is caused by the compaction of the subterranean layers, the compaction of these layers is caused by the force of gravity, and this compaction is not overpowered by the gravity of any close, massive object; thus, causally contributing to the earth is the distance of the moon and sun, and the position of the moon and sun is allowed by the positions of the further bodies of the solar system and Milky Way - outwards and outwards in a causal chain that currently exists at any given moment. If there is change occurring right now, then there must be some cause that is actuating that change right now - or else that change has no explanation, which is absurd.

Kant would dispute that the chain of physical causes can ever reach an originating active power, even in a given moment; we can travel through space without ever ending, and we will never reach an edge beyond which there is a god imbuing the universe with active power. (Kant’s view would challenge Aristotle’s, and it was Aristotelian thinking that influenced Aquinas on this point.) Rather, the universe is the infinite spatiotemporal appearance of some non-spatial, non-temporal domain of being; this domain of being cannot be experienced by humans, but it provides a merely logical explanation for why there is a spatiotemporal universe at all. This domain of things-in-themselves might include a god, but we cannot prove or disprove this; in any case, the domain of things-in-itself does include us - that is, it includes whatever mysterious things human souls are apart from spatiotemporal bodies and their associated nature-restricted minds. So while Kant in a limited sense agrees with Aquinas' first way - namely, that every present moment of physical existence requires some non-physical basis that directly explains it - Kant would not agree that we can prove the necessity of this being by physical laws, nor that the universe is at all finite, nor that this being is likely what is traditionally called "God." For Kant, the more immediate basis of a person's physical existence is their own non-physical self - their transcendental unity of apperception, the core of all their orderly mental functions - and if a god exists, then its existence can only be suggested (not proven) after further rational arguments are made on the basis of this non-physical self.

[Anonymous No.10918810]

>>10918070

In the second way, Aquinas argues that there must be a first efficient cause in nature; that is, he describes this cause as one that started the course of time from an originating moment, after which natural history has followed, leading up to now. Aquinas maintains that if there were no first state of time, then there would be no intervening states of time leading to now, and now would never have arrived - but since now does exist, there must have been some first state of time, and some explanation for this state. He affirms that the explanation is God. (This is distinct from the first way, which described the cause of the universe as active at every given moment of the universe's existence - which is not incompatible with this second way, but just focuses on a different aspect of Aquinas’ concept of God. Aquinas’ first way argued that for every time-slice, the causal chain through space is finite, and logically requires God. Kant argued that this causal chain through space can be pursued infinitely, and logically requires the human mind.)

Against the second way, Kant's objection would focus on time, rather than on space (as the first way would involve). The orderly pattern of time is the human mind's own function - simply one of the ways in which the human mind organizes the raw data that arises within it. Human consciousness proceeds temporally, and this is immediately obvious; everything the human mind processes ordered within to time, the law of which carries experience ever forward - human consciousness cannot set aside this temporal functioning, because it cannot set aside its own nature. Events begin and end within time: the very definition of an ending is the course of time after which an event has ceased, this course of time displaying that the event has not been continuing, but rather other events have continued on without it. Likewise, events can only being within time, and the prior duration of time without the event is exactly what provides the context within with the beginning of the event can be understood. An event can only originate if time is already there, so the order of time can be traced infinitely into the past as well as imagined infinitely into the future.

[Anonymous No.10918815]

>>10918096
fuck off feser

[Anonymous No.10918827]

>>10918810

Continuing Kant on Aquinas' the second way:

The reason that this does not fall into the fallacy of an infinite regress is that the infinitude is merely the indefinite processing of the human mind; when a human mind imagines the past or future at further and further reaches, that human mind is only using one of its own powers of image-making, automatically paving the road in front of itself as it travels. The human mind simply is a function of representing its received data according to its own ordering structures, one of which is time. Because time, and space, and causality, and other laws of nature, do not exist apart from human minds, but only structure how human human minds organize their own internal representations, these laws will continue to assemble newer and newer experiences, without ever reaching finitude, as long as the human's mind continues living, since this life is those very laws of nature and the universe of sensations they make orderly, intelligible.

Hope this turns the gears. I'll continue tomorrow if this thread remains.

[Anonymous No.10918828]

How is the existence of God even an issue? How can you be alive and not be experiencing God? What is wrong with everyone?

[Anonymous No.10918834]

>>10918828

[Anonymous No.10918838]

>>10918834
I think there is something wrong with you and I don't understand what it is. Are you even alive?

[Anonymous No.10918840]

>>10918838
Yes anon. Are you?

[Anonymous No.10918842]

>>10918828
scientisum

[Anonymous No.10918845]

>>10918840
Yes I am. True autism would lead to theological commitment not a rejection of it.

[Anonymous No.10918850]

>>10918845
But anon, I don't have the 'tism.

[Anonymous No.10918859]

>>10918850
I see. If you isolate yourself in a room for ten years I think God would come to you. At least you seem friendly that is good.

[Anonymous No.10919040]

>>10917072
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA
YOU TELL ME

[Anonymous No.10919289]

>>10918782
Thank you for doing this I genuinely appreciate your effort

[Anonymous No.10919309]

>>10917072
Yes, because the first 4 rely on the fact there had to be something which created the universe. Focus on the last, which is pretty good.

[Anonymous No.10919318]

>>10918834
he looks like a peanut

[Anonymous No.10919321]

>>10919318
kek how did I miss that

[Anonymous No.10919336]

>>10919040
Reddit: The Post

[Anonymous No.10919804]

>>10918782
>>10918793
>>10918799
Thanks for laying this out. The division of mind and body here is what causes problems later, though. Aquinas or Aristotle would deny that the world only exists as in the mind, and that laws of nature are an effort by the mind to make order of varied expressions. By their views, you can perceive the forms of objects through your senses, as you exist in a single body-mind entity and have a rational soul- the ability to come to know things. It's a huge metaphysical and epistemological difference, which obviously leads to different conclusions.
I'd argue that insofar as laws of nature exist, they do so in a manner more similar to forms- as tendencies of the objects in question. Laws as abstract entities makes little sense, and that kantian view leaves them with no more than descriptive usefulness, leading to some of the more skeptical views such as Hume's abandonment of induction entirely.

>>10918802
This hits some problems with accidental v essential motion, ie the actualization of potential. The notion of an "edge" beyond which the power of existence is applied is something foreign to Aquinas or Aristotle- the first mover would exist as the actualization behind any movement from act to potency, vs the universe infinite or finite, eternal or began. The nature of an essentially ordered series is such that without a first cause, none of the rest would follow, but your examples are for the most part accidentally ordered anyways.
>>10918810
>>10918827
This is a misunderstanding of the second way. Has nothing to do with states of time, but efficient causation. The rest of the arguments here apply more to other ways than the second, but again, it all falls on the nature of Kant's human mind and its perceptions vs human form and knowledge of the forms of other things.

Also (10918828) is baiting, that has nothing to do with Aquinas' arguments and is a rather poor point anyways.

[Anonymous No.10920115]

Yeah but if everything has a cause then what caused god? Hmmmmmm?

[Anonymous No.10920208]

>>10917420
This

[Anonymous No.10920333]

>>10920115
bait

[Anonymous No.10920375]

>>10920333
bsit

[Anonymous No.10920399]

>>10917072
Yes. It's completely pointless as it does not show the existence of a loving god.

there is life and there is death
and there is force of human breath

not tied by blood of battle or water of the womb
and not by heart string's thread

the bedroom of the groom is dead
he does not kiss me gentle or caress my head

tell me how this great lord above
does your lord give great sex?

[Anonymous No.10920408]

Anyone know some good secondary lit on Aquinas? I've read Feser's book and I'm looking for more like it.

[Anonymous No.10920428]

>>10920399
>Yes. It's completely pointless as it does not show the existence of a loving god.
implying that was the point of the five ways

[Anonymous No.10920434]

>>10917221
>happening instantaneously

[Anonymous No.10920450]

>>10920434
is not the "now" an instance?

[Anonymous No.10920597]

>>10919804

I appreciate your reply, and yes their epistemologies and metaphysics are radically different. Trying to get them to speak the same conceptual language is part of the challenge and fun, compounded by their different methodologies.

Can you detail some of the inferences you make in the following?

> Laws as abstract entities makes little sense, and that kantian view leaves them with no more than descriptive usefulness, leading to some of the more skeptical views such as Hume's abandonment of induction entirely.

I don't quite get your meaning here, but I want to say that for Kant, the laws of nature are immanent, constituting and regulating all physical objects in knowable, predictable ways.

You also say

>The notion of an "edge" beyond which the power of existence is applied is something foreign to Aquinas or Aristotle

But Aristotle maintained that the cosmos is spatially finite, with the sphere of the fixed stars being furthest layer visible from the center; Aristotle's God is somehow beyond the outermost sphere, with the divine act causing the outermost sphere to turn in teleological imitation of God's infinite, simple act; that motion of the outermost sphere imparts efficient causality through the celestial spheres, turning each of them in succession and ultimately churning up the center where the earth resides, efficiently causing cycles such as animal generation and decay. If space were unending, the transmission of this motion would never reach the center - and if the act causing this motion were to cease at any moment, then all subordinate motions would cease in the same instant. Aristotle, for example, didn't believe in inertia, and this made it tricky to explain how a thrown stone can continue to move through the air after losing contact with the cause that activated its motion - the thrower's hand. Aristotle argued that the thrower's hand also causes air to move in the vicinity of the stone, and this air continues to contact the stone as it flies, actively imbuing the stone with motion continuously until the landing.

This is the cosmology and (meta)physics inherited by Aquinas (or course there are other aspects of each that I didn't mention), and I don't see how Aquinas' system can survive without them - but of course I might be wrong about this. Yet it was soon after Aquinas' death that ideas about inertia grew in popularity, and one reason that such ideas were opposed was that inertia threatened the view that the motion of the cosmos relied on an act at every moment; inertial motions are more self-sufficient, and the rejection of the older physical principle of active contact would cast doubt on the metaphysical principle that Aristotle developed from it.

I'll be back later to connect all this with the other points you argue. Thanks again!

[Anonymous No.10920943]

>>10920428
>implying the 5 ways had a point beyond sophistry
If you can't show the existence of a loving god that gives you spiritual ecstasy in passionate union there's no fucking point to theology.

[Anonymous No.10921002]

>>10920943

If love is good and the arguments shows that God must be maximally Good then God must be maximally loving. See questions 5 and 6.

[Anonymous No.10921018]

>>10920597
Very interesting. Could you expand on the inertia thing?

[Anonymous No.10921024]

>>10920943
I don't use the five ways to discern the existence of a loving god, don't you get that? You are talking about something quite different. If I am going to justify believing in the existence of a loving personal god, I would have to first justify a deistic god.I show then the attributes of this deistic god to be loving through different means.

Seriously, how dense can you be? Your minuscule brain should be a heavy metal on the Table of Elements, because it seems that you are under the impression that theists must have one singular argument that spans over all areas of debate when discussing God. Does it make sense for a Christian to argue for the resurrection of Jesus Christ utilizing one of Aquinas' five ways? No it does not. And that does not mean that the Christian is silent when it comes to arguing for the resurrection, it just means that he uses an actually applicable medium of argument(a historical argument).

Arguing for a loving, personal god is really arguing with a whole array of arguments for the many aspects that people contend. You're putting Aquinas' five ways in a totally different arena of debate. They are meant for arguing in favor of there being a god who is at least deistic, not for arguing in favor of him being a loving god. If we were addressing him being loving or not(which we weren't; you brought up an irrelevant point), we would look to a different way of arguing.

[Anonymous No.10921055]

>>10917086
>>10917102
>>10917112
Kant simply points out that if you start with different assumptions about how things work you can logically argue, that is argue in a sound manner, for both the beginning and non-beginning of the universe.

Furthermore, Kant's refutation of the ontological argument (upon which his refutation of the cosmological and teleological arguments rest) essentially relies on him claiming existence isn't a property things possess, i.e. you can't define something that has the property of existing. Hegel later uses this absurd notion to correctly argue that pure being (being with no properties) and nothingness are the same thing, a result so odious to the sound mind that most everyone will recoil from it and reject it.

[Anonymous No.10921062]

>>10921055
>a result so odious to the sound mind that most everyone will recoil from it and reject it.

[Anonymous No.10921094]

>>10921062
>existing things with no qualities and non-existent things are the same

[Anonymous No.10921100]

>>10921094
>existing things with no qualities
such as?

[Anonymous No.10921115]

>>10921100
Me.

[Anonymous No.10921227]

>>10921100
This would have been the correct Kantian response. We've never encountered a pure being. It's the end result of a thought experiment where you remove properties from something until there's nothing left. Likewise, we've never encountered nothing. It's the end result of a thought experiment where you remove properties, including the property that something exists. But because we've never experienced these things, we should not reason with them.

It's a good thing Kant never uses the concepts of pure being and nothing to make arguments, since that would defeat his own regulative principles, right?

[Anonymous No.10921746]

>>10921002
And this is the part that is bullshit.

>>10921024
It is hardly irrelevant to point out that speculating on such a God is completely pointless as there is no evidence whatsover he loves us.

[Anonymous No.10921748]

>>10917380
>the breadth of which it may not even be possible in modern life to emulate, by regurgitating what they learned from their six (more likely two) years of philosophy classes taught by modernity-raped intelligentsia who have mentally masturbated themselves into intellectual-impotence and endless cycles of obfuscation for the past four centuries, resulting in achieving only the most vapidly epidermal misunderstanding of the primary texts but there's no one to call them out on their bullshit so they keep teaching for the rest of their life since hey, I deserve tenure and it feels great to babysit all of the spoiled bourgeois faggots who eat everything I say up

well said anon

[Anonymous No.10921775]

>>10921746
>no evidence whatsover
lol okay buddy; Good Friday to you.

[Anonymous No.10921780]

>>10917380
I mean, Plato said that man was a featherless biped, Spinoza argued that animals are not conscious and Descartes thought apes could speak our language but just pretended not to be able to. Just because someone is brilliant it doesn't mean they are without flaw, especially after long periods of time and development in the field. You don't have to be Michel Roux to say that your food tastes like shit, mate.

[Anonymous No.10921984]

>>10921746
>And this is the part that is bullshit.

Good argument

[Anonymous No.10921997]

Every time I've seen the Five Ways explained, even in their context, they seemed like brainlet arguments T B H.
>bruh this vague """logic""" proves God!!!

There is NO argument for God, or for a need for God.

[Anonymous No.10922250]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10922266]

>>10921984
>implying maximally Good=maximally loving
Christians don't even have a good answer to what Good is except what God commands. The Roman Catholic church still endorses natural law theory. But natural law theory can't tell us what Good is but only what God tells us Good is which is circuituous.

[Anonymous No.10922281]

>>10920597
It's definitely an interesting exercise to exchange terms, but ultimately either argument fails if put in the other's views on knowledge unless the terms are stretched beyond each philosophers' intentions. Aquinas' argument as restated above is rather weak because of the limitations of knowledge and inductively derived laws of nature rather than causality.
The section you quoted was a very brief discussion of the nature of laws of nature- basically that they only have relevance as exemplified in the objects described. It makes more sense to speak of them as ends, forms, or tendencies of the objects rather than external laws. You describe Kant's view of the natural laws as immanent and knowable here- that's a bit different from above, but immanent and knowable laws could be treated analogously to thomistic causation well enough to fit the argument. Doing so, though, does away with Kant's criticisms rather well. There's still the "existence as a predicate" thing, but I'm not sure it works. Existence is necessarily separate from the nature of compound things, but for an object defined solely by existence, the thomistic arguments about the nature of the first mover require absolute simplicity, among other things. This does describe something coherent, even if not necessarily existent, but only for the concept of the first mover.

About the edge thing... even if discussed by Aristotle, it's necessary neither to his or Aquinas' metaphysics or the arguments in question. Aquinas treats God as necessarily nonmaterial in essence. The theories of inertia are also rather irrelevant, those views apply to movement as actualization of potential, the only thing different about the motion of the rock properly understood is that its movement is now not properly considered motion in the same sense.

[Anonymous No.10922295]

>>10920450
>happening in "the now"

[Anonymous No.10922304]

>>10922266

You're just a fedora. Christianity has nothing to do with this and neither does natural law. You have a bone to pick with religion so you're not capable of seriously considering the arguments for the existence of God. This is why you change the subject.

[Anonymous No.10922307]

>>10922295
What stimulating retorts

[Anonymous No.10922402]

>>10922304
I told you a creator may or may not exist. And the creator may even be intelligent. But the only reason to call this thing God is because you love this creator and this creator loves you. If there is no loving God why care about the The Five Ways at all?

[Anonymous No.10922464]

>>10922402

I don't give a damn what you think. You said before that Aquinas doesn't argue that God is personal and loving when that's simply not true. You see the summary of basic arguments for a generic deistic God in the beginning of the Summa and you're acting as if that's it. If love is good and God is maximally good, then it follows that God is maximally loving. Aquinas argues that love is good in question 20 and other places and argues that God is good in question 5 and 6. You don't know what the hell you're talking about but you're trying to speak with authority. It's obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.10922836]

>>10919804

Looking at my books again, I see you're right that the second way is not formulated to require a temporal series of efficient causes, at least given Aquinas' principles; I only remember learning this about the first way.

Part of the difficulty here is that on Kant's principles efficient causality always presupposes a temporal series, so I think Kant would argue that the only way to make sense of Aquinas' second way would be to keep its temporal application and discard all others, because they contain misunderstandings. But this is Kant's position, not a description of Aquinas', and the latter is what I was aiming for.

Seems like the terminological differences would make this a heftier project than I intended, because we'd need to translate more terms between not just Aquinas' and Kant's systems, but between your vocabulary and mine and the different ways we've been educated about these thinkers. Personally I do still see significance in the Aristotelian physics/cosmology and its bearing on the metaphysics that Aristotle developed, since the insights and flaws of the path the took through the "order of knowledge" influenced his conclusions about the "order of being," and the principles of this latter order were significantly preserved in Aquinas. But this is an era of history that I'm re-re-studying, and there is no end to learning and correcting. The weight of my studies has clearly tilted more towards Kant, while yours seems more Thomistic, and I'm guessing we'll get the chance to discuss them both here again in the future. Thanks for your attention and for sharpening me up!

[Anonymous No.10922963]

>>10917102
oh dear

[Anonymous No.10922996]

>>10921055
>essentially relies on him claiming existence isn't a property things possess, i.e. you can't define something that has the property of existing.
What exactly do you mean by "property"? A thing that "exists" in the sense the ontological argument seeks to apply the term to God (i.e. objectively) can only be said to be so when it is empirically determined, since without an empirical character, the thing is an idea, which we have no knowledge of as an empirical (and sensual) object. Existence itself is still a property in the sense that it is a logical predicate, i.e., it is a property that determines the relation of an object (intellectual or sensual) to the subject. Kant's point is that it's actually improper to apply the property of existence to something purely intelligible, because in this circumstance you are only treating the thing according to the idea of the predicate of existence, and not according to the predicate itself.

[Anonymous No.10923216]

>>10922266
By "command" you mean "fundamentally order the structure of realty so that things have final causes". Its not like the World was already here, then God showed up and commanded "blue good, red bad".

[Anonymous No.10923259]

>>10919040

>the absolute state of modern atheism

[Anonymous No.10923275]

>>10918827
Nice work, look forward to seeing your posts on the other ways

[Anonymous No.10923296]

>>10919040
I've seen fucked up gas station bathrooms that were less disgusting than this human

[Anonymous No.10923298]

>>10917072
God is the conclusion

[Anonymous No.10923393]

>>10922836
Yeah that particular argument doesn't even really exist in a kantian metaphysical system. Translating terms changes the thrust of it entirely.
The physics are interesting to note as far as the history of the metaphysics are concerned, but they ultimately don't change the forms-based monist metaphysical system or its epistemological conclusions- those hold up as well under even current physics models, let alone einsteinean or newtonian physics, with nothing more than an insignificant clarification of the definition of motion involved. It is a fascinating topic, though. Kind of weird how little talk there is over comparing the basic metaphysical axioms- the conclusions of different systems like this makes for excellent discussion.

>>10922996
To clarify, I mean that existence can't be more than an accidental property of most (all but one) objects. If an object can have any of transcendent goodness/truth/existence as an essential property, the usual nature-of-first-mover arguments apply.
In response to the rest of your post: requiring an "empirical" determination of a non-material thing misses the point.
>it's actually improper to apply the property of existence to something purely intelligible, because in this circumstance you are only treating the thing according to the idea of the predicate of existence, and not according to the predicate itself.
Can you clarify this by the ideas of existence as predicate I mentioned? If I understand it, you're saying that describing an intelligible (v sensible) thing as existing you're leaving aside the object itself and only discussing the existence predicate. Seems derived from the other long-form anon's first description of natural laws as not completely knowable?
Not sure it works as a criticism here. The arguments of Aquinas generally go from the properties of or relationships between things to deducing a necessary outside entity, which either by the result or a simple corollary is demonstrated to be immaterial. Existence as a necessary property doesn't apply to non-simple nonmaterial entities any more than physical ones, though.

[Anonymous No.10923415]

>>10920408
Anyone?

[Anonymous No.10923717]

>>10923415
Might want to check if there's a Cambridge Companion to Aquinas and go from there

[Anonymous No.10923718]

>>10922996
Kant claims that there are noumenal objects which necessarily exists, although we only ever experience their phenomenal correspondents. How can he apply the predicate of existence to something that we do not experience, to something purely intelligible. Clearly he uses existence as a property these noumena possess, and not to imply that they correspond to something in phenomenal experience.

[Anonymous No.10924649]

>>10923259
Remember when they used to call themselves the "brights?" I miss the old days.

[Anonymous No.10924984]

>>10920408
>>10923415
>>10923717
Pdf here
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://bibotu.com/books/2013b/Aquinas,%2520St.%2520Thomas/Thomas%2520Aquinas%2520-%2520A%2520Very%2520Short%2520Introduction.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiTqbbW35baAhUFZFAKHWWICSsQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2X0xOcxXiTF5makrdpNrvA

[Anonymous No.10925661]

>>10922464
Aquinas arguments are retarded:

>I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (Q[19], A[4]) that God's will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness.

Aquinas argues God loves all things because he sustains or created all things. Which is idiotic.

Furthermore, Aquinas argues God loves only better things because wait for it, whatever God wanted was better which is tautological.

>I answer that, It must needs be, according to what has been said before, that God loves more the better things . For it has been shown (AA[2],3), that God's loving one thing more than another is nothing else than His willing for that thing a greater good: because God's will is the cause of goodness in things; and the reason why some things are better than others, is that God wills for them a greater good. Hence it follows that He loves more the better things.

[Anonymous No.10925699]

>>10925661

I'm not impressed with people who just call arguments idiotic and retarded and act as if it means something.

[Anonymous No.10925732]

>>10925661
Which part specifically do you disagree with from his argument?

>For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good

>It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God

>To every existing thing, then, God wills some good

>Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists

[Anonymous No.10925738]

>>10925732
Conclusion: God loved the Holocaust and Gulags

[Anonymous No.10925759]

>>10925738
Evil is the privation of good, nigga

Even assuming you are correct in your conclusion (you aren't), not liking a conclusion isn't how you disagree with an argument. Which particular step do you disagree with?

Don't bother replying if you're going to disagree with the axiomatic foundation of the argument because the objection was raised specifically to this argument itself.

[Anonymous No.10925775]

>>10917072
that painting reminds me of Brando in Apocalypse Now whenever i see the thumbnail

[Anonymous No.10926663]

>>10925759
>not liking a conclusion isn't how you disagree with an argument
What is reductio ad absurdum?

[Anonymous No.10926890]

>>10923393
>requiring an "empirical" determination of a non-material thing misses the point.
But that's precisely the point. If those who sought to prove God's existence stayed within the bounds of pure reason, as Kant does when he makes the argument that the disjunctive syllogism is a particular iteration of the ideal of God, there would be no logical problem. The difficulty appears when what Kant calls "transcendent sophistry" is employed, i.e. using precepts of pure reason to prove that something directly affects the empirical world.

When you're talking about the necessary existence of an intelligible object, it's only speciously valid to say that this property of necessary existence extends to the phenomenal world. That is, there must be something (a pure intelligible object) without the human mind. This is what his argument against dogmatic idealism and solipsism hinges on. But this noumenon is the limit of the understanding; we can know that it "exists behind" a phenomenon, but we also know that we will never understand it, given its character as a material object as it would exist outside the forms of human perception. This is why, though there must be noumena, it's impossible to say how they affect the phenomenal world, i.e. how phenomena are derived from them. If this be granted, it's not possible to work back from natural causality (whether linear or hierarchical) to an unmoved mover. In the major of the syllogism, causality must be taken in the "pure signification of the category," i.e. as a concept of pure reason divested of absolute relation to a phenomenon ("that every conditioned has a condition"), but in the minor it is applied to the phenomenal world without phenomenal qualification ("there must be something unconditioned"). In other words, by the pure concept of causality there must be something unconditioned, but in the application of this concept in its only proper sphere (the understanding of phenomena) that unconditioned can never be reached, because the empirical regress is infinite.

>>10923718
He applies existence as a purely logical category to noumena. In the same way that God is an ideal of reason without which the disjunctive syllogism can't operate, noumena are necessary for there to be an understanding subordinate to reason, but that only give limits to the understanding. Just as we can't reference any phenomenal causal event to God without falling into sophistry, we can't reference the behavior of phenomena to the behavior of noumena without falling into the same error.

[Anonymous No.10927166]

>>10926890
The whole point of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is that you can't apply a category, logical or not, to anything outside of experience without possibly falling into error. Existence is one such category, and the whole basis of his refutation of the ontological argument is that you shouldn't apply the category of existence to something that you've never experienced.

Furthermore, if noumena are simply an ideal, then they cannot be said to necessarily exist, just like Kant claims God does not necessarily exist. Yet Kant's whole system relies on noumena existing, or else there would be nothing from which phenomenal objects come.

Causality is just as much a category as Existence is.

[Anonymous No.10927457]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10927464]

>>10925759
Not that anon but why could one not argue that good is just a lack of evil ?

[Anonymous No.10927512]

>>10926890
>>10927166
Again, though, this is logically dependent on Kant's metaphysical assumptions. The dependence on the senses is the result of his non-monist assumption. The metaphysics can be argued, but without a refutation of Aristotelian metaphysics the rest of the argument fails. It's also odd to impose Kantian categories so passingly on all proofs of God- I imagine at least the ontological ones, whether you agree with them or not, remain within pure reason. The cosmological argument demonstrates an entity from the world, it doesn't use pure reason to dictate that a nonmaterial thing affects the material world.

>>10927464
That's rather easily contradicted by examples. Life as a lack of murder is practically obviously wrong.

>>10926663
Ad absurdums done properly can point to a contradiction as well as a bad result, but yes.

[Anonymous No.10927513]

>>10927464
What difference would it make?

[Anonymous No.10927601]

The first difference it would make is how one would view purposes/ teleological ends and the second would be how one views the divine

>>10927512
No in this case it would be life is designed for evil and suffering and that any good that comes from it is an aberration

[Anonymous No.10927631]

>>10927166
That something necessarily exists as an ideal of pure reason does not mean that it necessarily exists in the phenomenal world. Kant deduces certain categories from others, e.g. he deduces that the category of totality is a necessary unification of the categories of unity and plurality. The category of totality necessarily exists as the union of the other two categories of quantity, but this does not mean that a particular totality necessarily exists.

>>10927512
>The cosmological argument demonstrates an entity from the world, it doesn't use pure reason to dictate that a nonmaterial thing affects the material world.
But I thought we were considering God a non-material thing, as here >>10923393

[Anonymous No.10927672]

>>10927601
>The first difference it would make is how one would view purposes/ teleological ends and the second would be how one views the divine

I'm assuming this is a response to this post >>10927513

How would it change the way we view purpose and the divine? Merely stating that it does isn't an answer because it isn't a reason.

[Anonymous No.10927697]

>>10927631
God is being considered nonmaterial in that. It's just that His existence is deduced from the relationships between material things. "From the world" was probably bad word choice.

[Anonymous No.10927713]

>>10927672
Yep that was directed toward your comment. I thought the conclusion was naturally that it would mean a cruel and hostile divine, and a reverse of the best possible world idea. As for purpose it would create a situation where finding happiness and satiafaction would require going and rebelling against the fulfilment of our purpose

[Anonymous No.10927881]

>>10927631
For Kant existence is when there is a list of properties and a concept corresponds to an object satisfying those properties. That is, only phenomenal objects can be existent. But noumena cannot be observed or experienced, only their phenomenal correspondents can. Thus noumena cannot be said to exist.

It doesn't matter to me that Kant derives certain categories from others. The point is that he doesn't play by his own rules, so why should we? Pure Reason shouldn't even mention noumena if it wants to stay out of error. But Kant does just that. He even claims that these things exist, even though existence is a category. It should only be phenomena A is phenomena B, since existence isn't a property. But Kant says Noumena exist.

His refutation of the ontological argument is a refutation of himself.

[Anonymous No.10928032]

>>10927881
Ok, when I said "there must be something without the human mind," that was vague, and has lead to a misunderstanding. Hopefully this section from the "Refutation of Idealism" in the first Critique can remedy this:
>The question as to the possibility of it [the existence of external things] would stand thus: have we an internal sense, but no external sense, and is our belief in external perception a mere delusion? But it is evident that, in order to merely fancy to ourselves anything as external, that is, to present it to the sense in intuition, we must already possess an external sense, and must thereby distinguish immediately the mere receptivity of an external intuition from the spontaneity that characterizes every act of imagination. For merely to imagine also an external sense, would annihilate the faculty of intuition itself which is to be determined by the imagination.

It isn't that noumena "exist" objectively in the same capacity as phenomena, it's that the structure of the human mind indicates that noumena would exist, if it were possible for the human mind to cognize objects on a purely intelligible basis. In other words, noumena do not have objective existence, but without the idea of the noumenon there couldn't be an idea of phenomenon to oppose to it. Noumena are necessary like an ideal of reason (again, like God), but not objectively necessary like a link in an empirical causal chain. Of God, Kant says this:
>The notion of a Supreme Being is in many respects a highly useful idea; but for the very reason that it is an idea, it is incapable of enlarging our cognition with regard to the existence of things.
It is so with noumena. A noumenon is a thing which we know we cannot know to exist by its character as a purely intelligible object.

>>10927697
>God is being considered nonmaterial in that. It's just that His existence is deduced from the relationships between material things.
>[the cosmological argument] doesn't use pure reason to dictate that a nonmaterial thing affects the material world.
The problem, again, is that "the relationships between material things" here considered (namely, causal relations) are treated according to the pure category, which is determined by pure reason's reference to the forms of intuition. Using the category strictly in reference to understanding could never yield an unconditioned term, for the very reason that all material things are conditioned. There must be, in order to reach God from the idea of causality, a transcendental leap from the use of the category in the understanding to the use of the category in service of the determination of the existence of intelligible objects.

[Anonymous No.10928171]

>>10928032
Kant doesn't just say nounema (or the not necessarily corresponding but equally problematic thing-in-itself) "must exist in order for us to cognize objects." He says it exists, period. He says these things are the source of our phenomenal experience. He says that things-in-themselves (and noumena) do not exist in space and time. And all of this is in contradiction to his own limitations. It's the classic objection Jacobi offered.

I sense we are going in circles on this matter, which is fine. But I remain unconvinced that Kant successfully refuted the ontological argument, and as a result the cosmological or teleological argument, and I remain unconvinced that existence is not a property.

Besides, the easiest refutation of the Ontological argument is that it requires the assumption that existence is better than non-existence. On what grounds can we say existence is better, unless we have some Absolute standard by which to say so. This part of the argument already presupposes the existence of God.

[Anonymous No.10928359]

>>10922266
>Christians don't even have a good answer to what Good is except what God commands.

That's not accurate.

Here is Aquinas's rather complex, several moving parts explanation of what good or "the good" is:
http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/2009/12/question-5-general-notion-of-good.html

Along similar (i.e., seeing good in relation to being) but non-scholastic lines, we have Augustine:
>According to Augustine, “things that exist are good” (Confessions VII.12). This claim is meant to express a basic metaphysical idea, namely, that if something exists, then it necessarily has some degree of goodness.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/

[Anonymous No.10928411]

>>10918227
>Judeo-Christian

[Anonymous No.10928594]

>>10928032
That distinction is based entirely in Kant's epistemology outside of other convincing arguments for it. Frankly, the idea that 2 types of truth can't be used to derive each other strikes me as far-fetched as well.

[Anonymous No.10928795]

>>10928359
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summa_Theologiae/First_Part/Question_5
Explain how this solves cases like the Trolley Problem.

[Anonymous No.10928873]

>>10928795
I giggled

[Anonymous No.10929112]

>>10928795
lol like any pure utilitarian situation exists

[Anonymous No.10929234]

>>10928795
You're in the wrong section for that particular case. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7 covers it, though. Basic application of double effect principle.

[Anonymous No.10929301]

>>10929234

I Ctrl+f'd "trolley problem" and didn't find anything. Atheists win again.

[Anonymous No.10930225]

bump

[Anonymous No.10930282]

>>10929301
How does atheists solve the trolley problem ?

[Anonymous No.10931100]

What are the underlying assumptions and axioms of Aquina's metaphysics?

[Anonymous No.10931477]

>>10931100
act/potency distinction

[Anonymous No.10931582]

>>10930282
they just purge the trolls

[Anonymous No.10932011]

>>10917072

Yes, one should automatically reject the ideas of obese people because if they can't control their own weight how can you expect their ideas to be of any worth.

[Anonymous No.10933902]

>>10931477

Isn't that just a useful way of describing change?

[Anonymous No.10934029]

>>10932011
This but unironically.

[Anonymous No.10934175]

>The subject of Being is one of the most important of all philosophical concerns. St Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest of all philosophers. It will be the aim of this book to show that on this crucial topic this first-rank philosopher was thoroughly confused.
Anthony Kenny, Aquinas on Being*

Any opinions on Kenny's claim here?


*Source: http://bibotu.com/books/2013b/Aquinas,%20St.%20Thomas/0198238479.Oxford.University.Press.USA.Aquinas.on.Being.Oct.2002.pdf

[Anonymous No.10934251]

>>10931477
Is that all?

[Anonymous No.10934260]

>>10934175

Feser responds to him in his beginners guide, talking about how he misunderstands Aquinas. I can't remember what it was specifically though.

[Anonymous No.10934328]

>>10934260
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.10934499]

>>10919040
I watched this whole thing and I deserve an apology. I lost a whole standard deviation of IQ from this.

[Anonymous No.10934521]

Why do moderns have so much trouble reading Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.10934668]

>>10917387
It's not like he ever struggled in life. I don't see why he wouldn't be. I'm sure he feasted while also rationalizing the sin of gluttony.

[Anonymous No.10934708]

>>10934260
>Edward "If You Disagree with Aquinas You Don't Understand Him" Feser tells yet another person that they don't understand Aquinas
Shocking

[Anonymous No.10934734]

>>10934708
what if he like, I mean, you know, like, proved why someone could totally, be, perhaps, wrong, if you catch my drift, you know, right, yeah?

[Anonymous No.10934744]

>>10934734
He's right about New Atheists not understanding Aquinas with the whole "everything that exists has a cause" strawman. But there's a point where it becomes difficult to believe that all of his opponents are wrong for the same reason.

[Anonymous No.10934799]

>>10934744
are they wrong for the same reason? Or are they different reasons?

Too, if a bunch of opponents without a doubt say the same mistake then there you go lol. Like if there were five guys that Feser has addressed who are quoted with misinterpreting the argument, then what's hard to believe that. I only know of Feser and plan to read his five ways book. But I mean if he's quoting dudes' misinterpretations, what can you say to that?

[Anonymous No.10934801]

>>10934521
The summa is ridiculously long and on top of that is hard to come by in print. Because of that most get him second hand.

[Anonymous No.10934805]

>>10934744

I think Feser's problem with Kenny has more to do with his misreading of essence and existence and it's not even really Kenny's fault. It's seemingly everyone from Descartes onward. Moderns just do not understand Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.10934821]

>>10934799
Well they have different misunderstandings, but they all misunderstand him, according to Feser, so in that sense it's the same reason. I would be impressed if he could give a defense of Thomism that doesn't involve calling the opponent misinformed. Maybe he has, but I haven't read it.

>>10934805
Go to bed, Ed

[Anonymous No.10934849]

>>10934821
lol I suggest we both read him! we shall see :)

[Anonymous No.10934857]

>>10934521
Because it’s a highly technical school of philosophy that hasn’t been the center of discourse for roughly 500 years. People have enough trouble with figures like Kant and he’s fairly recent.

[Anonymous No.10934871]

>>10934821
It's not like he just says somebody misunderstands Aquinas and leaves it at that. He explains why exactly they get him wrong. It's a completely valid critique because you can't argue against somebody if you don't understand them. It is utterly absurd to suggest that misrepresentations or misunderstandings shouldn't be pointed out.

[Anonymous No.10935352]

From what I've gotten through in the past hour or so Kenny's objections aren't damning- some of them seem to be as simple as the newtonian motion refutation meme. Feser's not alone in considering him to misunderstand Aquinas, either: Oderberg at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7SKlRTfkUieN3dGVkhNTi1SQUU/view seems rather devastating to Kenny's position.

[Anonymous No.10936443]

>>10934251
bumping for
>>10934251

[Anonymous No.10936459]

>>10917072
God is not real, folks.

[Anonymous No.10936791]

>>10918793
>>10918799
fuck me, the mental energy I had to expend to try and understand these posts and the accompanying pics was exhausting and I'm still not sure I 100% grasp it
does it get easier over time or am I destined to struggle comprehending such ideas forever ie brainletism

[Anonymous No.10936921]

>>10917072
That physics has rendered Aristotelian laws of motion and causation obsolete. I know nothing about physics though so I can't assess whether this argument actually kills Aquinas

[Anonymous No.10937315]

bump

[Anonymous No.10937405]

Did Aquinas get anything wrong?

[Anonymous No.10937435]

>>10917072
Anyone interested in thomism and Kant should check out Reginald Garrigou Lagrange.

[Anonymous No.10938837]

>>10922266
>Christians don't even have a good answer to what Good is except what God commands.

Question 5 article 1

[Anonymous No.10939826]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10940149]

Pretty sure people have already pointed this out, but didn't Aquinas *explicitly* state that he wasn't trying to prove God's existence with his ways?

[Anonymous No.10940254]

>>10936443
>>10934251
Well, there are a couple of core premises, like the rejection of an infinite regression (in the sense of it being either logically problematic or ontologically impossible), the chronological order of cause and effect, and of course the validity of modus ponens and tollens type of arguments.

His "ways" (especially the teleological one) also lean heavily on the assumption that empirical data are useful and reliable, a fact that's sometimes overlooked.

[Anonymous No.10940265]

>>10940149
Why would you think he wasn't trying to prove the existence of God? It wouldn't make much sense to provide arguments for the existence of God if he wasn't trying to prove it.

[Anonymous No.10940367]

>>10940265
>Why would you think he wasn't trying to prove the existence of God?
I thought that's what he said in a preamble to his five ways, but I might be misremembering things. From my recollection, his intent wasn't to present the world with ultimate proof of anything, but to provide those who just can't bring themselves to accept God on faith alone something to build a rational theological foundation on.

Maybe I'm misattributing this from Anselm of Canterbury.

[Anonymous No.10941708]

It's a load of bullcrap. Why does an "essentially linked causal chain" need to exist? What about an infinite regress, I mean, we have modern mathematical proof of infinities existing within finite numbers or sets of numbers, hence an infinite causal chain existing in a finite body (or universe) is completely intelligible and possible in the real world. Even if we deny this possibility, claiming that there's an active and immediate cause holding everything together makes us wonder why can't the objects composing the universe at any given time be by essence self generating; meaning we'd have a self generated set of particular objects at any given time. Further, one has to question if the notion of an instant is in itself flawed or not; we certainly have no knowledge by experience of such a thing. And getting into the meatier stuff, the definition of god: why isn't this same definition what a person would typically use to define nothingness? "Nothing" is unmovable, eternal, one, indivisible; meaning that if in some way his arguments happen to make sense, he's essentially saying everything spawns from nothing in every instance of time, but since the process of "spawning" would have no causal structure, it'd be equivalent to say --as budhists would say-- everything simply is.

I don't have an alternative system, but these are objections that he doesn't touch upon and which are irrefutable.

[Anonymous No.10942487]

bump

[Anonymous No.10942527]

>>10941708
1. The Universe has been proven by science to be finite and to have come into being at a certain point in time.

2. I fail to see your logic on this one, maybe elaborate? How does having an immediate cause that holds everything together necessitate self-generating objects?

3. Your definition of nothingness is flawed. Nothing is neither eternal nor constrained by time, it is neither infinite nor finite, it is neither divisible nor indivisible. Nothingness has no attributes because it is nothing.

[Anonymous No.10942549]

>>10942527
No it hasn't, the Big Bang wasn't the "creation of the universe" as normies seem to think it means, rather it's just the beginning of observable time. The two are related, but not synonymous. It's still well within the realm of possibility that something came before the Big Bang.

[Anonymous No.10942598]

>>10942549
The Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem proves that the Universe had a beginning.

A quote from Vilenkin: 'It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.'

[Anonymous No.10942615]

>>10942527
>the universe has been proven by science to be finite and to have come into being at a certain point in time
substantiate claims

[Anonymous No.10942630]

>>10942615
He did see >>10942598

[Anonymous No.10942697]

>>10925738
>If God real then why bad thing?

[Anonymous No.10942783]

>>10941708
You're generally supposed to understand an argument before attacking it. And yes, that includes the arguments for its premises. There are arguments specifically concerning, say, the differences between types of causal chains, and the impossibility of infinite regress in some of them- yes, he knew what infinite causal chains were sufficiently well for the argument. Why can't objects be self caused? Because of the logically resulting properties of necessarily existent things. And I'm not sure how you can possibly attribute "one" or "indivisible" or "exists" to nothingness, let alone the other properties of the divine Aquinas derives.

Try harder. (Or if this was bait, do try less hard)