ALRIGHT FINE H-LL, I'LL DO IT AGAIN AND I'LL PAY CLOSER ATTENTION. THIS WILL TAKE SOME TIME. HERE IS AQUINAS:
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our sense, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be moved from a state of potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality... it is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If that by which it is moved must itself be moved, then this also needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently, no other mover, seeing as subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world of sensible things we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, or intermediate, cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist begins to exist only through something already existing.Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore, we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. (Aquinas)
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. But more and less are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest, and, consequently, something which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being... Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book. Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
HERE IS RAITH:
Raithere said:
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.
GOkay, we'll look at this again: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. Uncaused Cause is outside of Time as shown below. 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. But God is Actuality itself, His Being is pure ACT, He has no potentiality, and so he does not change. This is not an imperfection, for whatever changes goes from potential to actual. but the prime mover is already fully 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?
