ALRIGHT FINE H-LL, I'LL DO IT AGAIN AND I'LL PAY CLOSER ATTENTION. THIS WILL TAKE SOME TIME.
Raithere said:
Okay, we'll look at this again:
It assumes that our notions of causality always apply. This is refuted by observations on the quantum level where everyday causality does not apply. Where effect can precede cause and objects can move from one point to another without crossing the space between.
Given that EFFECT can precede CAUSE: Ok, I doubt it, but lets assume it does.
It is still CAUSE and EFFECT. And Aquinas' argument still maintains. God is outside of Time. If anything, quantum mechanics will probably end up supporting theology.
It assumes that time is infinite. According to relativity matter, space, and time are aspects of the same thing. Therefore, time did not exist prior to the existence of the Universe. This invalidates the problem of infinite regression. Actually, the refutation is somewhat unnecessary because the answer of God doesn't resolve the problem anyway.
Ok. Aquinas does not assume Time is Infinite. He also is aware that Time, Space, and Matter are merely categories and are interlinked and inseperable. Aquinas assumes that Time began with Creation. Infinite regression is still a problem however for those who say that there is no prime mover. Aquinas said this in the passage "But this cannot go on to infinity..." Since the Prime mover stops infinite regression.
The assignment of the attribute "uncaused cause" is arbitrary. You have not established that God/Jehovah and only God may possess the attribute. Nor have you established that only God is exempt from requiring a cause. You just assigned it at whim. We may just as logically postulate that there are many gods that are uncaused. Or, more simply, we may assign the attribute to the Universe itself. .
This is a worthy criticism, a question which many great philosophers have worked with, "can there be more than one uncaused cause?" I will give my answer, which i came up with myself, though I assure you, Aquinas probably has solved much more simply. CAUSALITY of any multiplicity, such as the material universe, that is TIME-SPACE-EXTENSION-MATTER, must be outside of that multiplicity, and not be other than "outside" or "beyond" it, and not in space-time. Whatever is outside of SPACE_TIME/MATTER_EXTENSION must not be in space, and therefore can only be one, since two things cannot be at once the same. It boils down to the prime philosophical question of SAME and DIFFERENCE.
Two different causes cannot be at once the Same, but if such a hypothetical situation in which there were two uncaused causes, they would by necessity be outside of multiplicity and therefore only in Oneness, which makes them/it ONE.
An interesting aside but have you considered the consequences of this assertion? Thought and action require change. If God does not change then he is inert, incapable of thought or action..
Here it is assumed that the Prime Mover is being moved by another, or moves himself, a thing which has already been found erroneous by Aquinas in the first proof.
What is more, given that the Prime Mover exists, it is not so much that he is incapable of thought and change as much as he is thought thinking itself, as Aristotle pointed out, and being fully actualized does not need change, for change is the movement from the potential to the actual.
Second Proof:Both of your premises here are fallacious:
Your first premise, that objects have contingent existence, is erroneous. Nothing we can perceive is essentially contingent. Everything in the Universe is made of energy, which is permanent. It never disappears, it only changes form. The only thing that is contingent therefore is form.
Objects in the physical world do have contingent existance,
this means that they are unnecessary, and that in relation to the Prime Mover/Uncaused Cause, only that being is truly Necessary Being. Permanency does not imply Necessary Being. Being yes changes form, but change and form are both unnecessary realities, but they are both permanently part of the physical reality. The Prime Mover could put into motion an object/being that would never cease to move and would be co-eternal with the Prime Mover.
The Christian claims that God has in fact done this.
Your second premise commits the fallacy of circular reasoning. It includes your conclusion. God has necessary existence, therefore God exists.
You have misunderstood the reasoning.
The reasoning does not say God has necessary existance therefore God must exist, but it says "God has necessary existance (God must exist), the two statements are not sequential reasoning, but merely re-stating for clarification. reread the passage in question. its merely commentary.
Basically Aquinas is criticizing the ancient postulation of the existance of Nothingness (Void). For Aquinas, there is no such thing as primordial nothingness, a void or abyss never existed, for by even talking about it you disprove that the nothingness is not nothing...get it? He arrives again at necessary being because infinite regression is impossible, there must be a ground of BEING, a non-void, (Christians and others call this God.)
Goodness is a value judgment not an implicit attribute. It may not even be a constant depending upon the situation (not enough water is bad but too much is also bad).
I dont know what you mean by "implicit attribute", but to say goodness is a value judgement is relativism. Such relativism is nihilistic in scope and makes all dialogue impossible. Too much water says nothing about
water in itself, which is good for certain animals,
too much water does imply inordinate quantity or thirst, which is not good.
It is not derived from another source but determined by one's beliefs and one's ethics. Change the beliefs, change the values, and you change the order. Therefore to establish that an "order of perfection" even exists one must first establish that there is a single set of ethics by which an order can be established. You have not done so. Your hierarchy is arbitrary. If we examine these things from a standpoint of reproductive success, for instance, you would reverse the order.
Again, this is value Relatavism, it would be like saying, "not everyone means precisely the same thing when they use a word, therefore it is useless to talk, for you will never truly fully comprehend the other person" Thats absurd. A variety of orders exist in reality, for example in the animal kingdom things are valued by the animals in different ways for different reasons, but most if not all of the order is based on survival. The example I gave was on the level of Being, for the entire gamut of the order of Being, looking at it from Man's standpoint. You dont have to include monks and all, probably I should have left them out, after all, thats a suborder in the human world, in the area of moral order. So your criticism has some merit. We are not important to lions, usually, unless one decides to make dinner of us.
"Seem to" does not suffice. This becomes yet another circular argument. You have ascribed purpose and then look for the author of intent. First you must establish that "things" do indeed have purpose. .
So far all of your criticisms are on the commentary I inserted to introduce the concept, the first paragraph in each section, and Aquinas is in the second paragraph. It is there that you will find a more full presentation of the concept. If yoiu read the second paragraph you will see what he says, things act toward an end. Therefore the argument is based on observation of the physical world. He is saying that things which have no self awareness are still moved toward some purposeful end, such as vegitative life growing as food for the animals.
The order expressed in the Universe is simply defined by the laws of energy and the fundamental forces. That is all that is required. No additional 'governance' is needed. No matter the level of study no additional mysterious animating principle has been found. Several centuries of physics has made this abundantly clear. From the motion of the stars, to a protein folding within a cell thing operate the way they do due to certain fundamental principles and there is not an iota of evidence to support the notion that they are being controlled by some invisible intelligence.
So you admit that there is order in the Universe? But order cannot be maintained but by some higher Law or Power.
You call this the Law of energy and fundamental forces. But what keeps these from losing their power to the entropy of the universe that science prescribes? How are these various forces ordered among each other? quantum physics still finds this a mystery. Who or What brought these powers into being? did they arise from Nothingness? If so how?
