Thomas Aquinas and a debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2012, 05:14 AM
Question Thomas Aquinas and a debate
Hi Guys, I've recently had a debate with a theist.
He presented Aquinas's five proofs for god.

This is the video he directed me to :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPqCp1RVC...p%C2%ADlcp

I mentioned :god of the gaps" for the infinite regression since we have limited knowledge and "special pleading" since I found the reason god is excluded from that regression.(this was in regards to the first argument)
To be honest I think I could have handled it better and I am looking for advice how to debate these arguments.

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2012, 05:56 AM
RE: Thomas Aquinas and a debate
2:53 Argument from Motion
Points 7. and 8. are special pleading.

4:19 Argument from Efficient Causes
Points 6. and 7. are special pleading.

6:22 Argument from Possibility and Necessity
Point 10. is special pleading.

"Rule X applies for everything, except for god." Same old, same old.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
24-08-2012, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2012 03:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Thomas Aquinas and a debate
Childsplay.

(First of all, Dawkins is not a philosopher. So why did the vid maker pick him to make fun of ? In a way, the entire video is a straw-man, as we all know Dr. Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist, not a philosopher .. however, inasmuch as Dawkins did take on the subject in the book, it does place him open to criticism. That does not mean Dawkins' are the ONLY possible arguments against Aquinas).

1. Unmoved mover.
* Assumes there actually is a state of absolute "motionlessness". In this universe, that is never observed, as absolute 0 temperature has a measure, (2.00 Kelvin).
Aquinas had no detection equipment
* Assumes structure of rest / motion was already caused.
* Is argument for "proximate" mover, not ("first") Unmoved mover. The Unmoved moved, if he really is god, could have created a non-god, unmoved mover.
* Assumes linear time, and, that linear time is (already) in place.
* Assumes causality, and that causality is (already) in place. If the god "caused" causality, it assumes causality (already) in place. (Infinite Regression).
* Aquinas did not know about Relativity. ((There is no absolute (linnear) time)).
(A cause, with a different direction/position/speed in space-time, ie in the future of the object moved, could be the cause of motion, in it's relative past), and vice versa.
* Assumes the universe is intuitive. (we know from Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, that it is not).
* Assumes ALL things in motion could not have always been in, or possessed, motion, without having established that that is not possible. States something with no proof.
What he really should have said is "acceleration requires energy". We know from physics it is acceleration which requires input of energy, not motion. Aquinas did not know about "increasing rate(s) of motion", (acceleration). Physics tells us "things in motion stay in motion". The input of energy into a system to initiate an increase in motion can arise from many sources, including the conversion of matter to energy, and chemical energy to motion, not just "motion". Thus motion's origin/transfer is not really the question here. (The question here is really the origins of energy. Since this question is not addressed in Aquinas' argument, I am not required to address it, either, as my purpose here is simply to show his arguments are fallacious.) Aquinas did not know matter and energy are interchangeable. (E=mc2).
* #5 is not the ONLY possible conclusion from 1-4. No proof.
* #7 stated, not proven
* #8 stated, not proven as the ONLY possible conclusion
* First and foremost, assumes an object which "appears" at rest, really IS (completely) at rest, and that we have the ability to determine that.
a. Particle Physics knows that is fundamentally false, (Aquinas did not know about atoms, their components, and their properties).
b. Uncertainty has shown us that there is no way to determine the absolute position of anything, thus absolute rest, cannnot be proven, and in fact, from the particle/wave duality, we know it never will be.
c. A particle with absolutley no energy, (motion), has never been observed, or detected. Thus there is no way to test this proposition, and no reason to.
d. Assumes principle of transfer of energy of motion from one object to another object is, effective and efficient. Where did the principle come from ? If the transfer is not 100 % efficient, (which it is not, as some energy is dissipated as friction, and some as radiant energy), why did the god create a less than perfect transfer system ? What is a "perfect" transfer system. If there is one, who made the system ? Who set up the perfect standard ? (See perfection below).

2. First Cause
* Assumes linnear time, and causality (already) in place. (Aquinas did not know about Relativity).

3. Contingent Being.
* No. Essentially god of the gaps. Also assumes linnear time and causality, (already) in place.

4. Perfection.
* Perfection is a relative perception. What I perceive as perfect is not what you perceive as perfect.
* Perfection's definition is not established.
* Assumes there is only one "perfect standard". Has not established the standard. Has not established only one standard possible and/or necessary.
* States a creature is not as perfect as the idea of itself in mind of god. Not proven.
((Is actually a proof of NO god, and it makes her a non-perfect, (non-efficient, or less than perfect), creator)).
* A perfect, omnipotent god could/would translate a perfect idea, into a perfect creature.
* Assumes the god is subject to a structure of some sort, (already) in place, in the fabric of of the universe.

Did god have a reason for creating the universe ?
If god did not have a reason, god is not rational, and is capricious.
If not, god could either not do it, or create something else.
If god could not create something else, then there is a standard, apart from god, and god is not god.

Thank you Plato, for Euthyphro's Dillema, (written for "morality", but works here) :
* If the god made something perfect, did it have a reason ? If it was not perfect, how could it be a product of a perfect god ?
If the god had no reason, for the state (of perfection and/or imperfection) of the creature, then it could have made something else, and there is no standard of perfection, (in the mind of the god).
If it could NOT have made something else, and still be god, then a standard exists, apart from god.
If there is a good reason, that reason exists, apart from god.
Could he have made something else ?
If he could not create something else, then perfection exists apart from god.
Is something not perfect, because god says it's not perfect, or is it not perfect, because it's objectively not perfect , and god had to say that ?
Would something imperfect, be perfect, if god says it's perfect ?
Conclusions:
If god could not have made something which is imperferct, and still be god, then the source of the perfection is not god.
If it would still be perfect , even if god says it's not perfect, then the source of perfection is not god.
If the source of perfection is not god, then we must look elsewhere for guidance, on what is perfect.

(BTW, this proof, is also valid for "causality", ie debubking "First Cause", and is also proof of god's non-existence, and non-contingent nature.)

5. Anthropic Principle.
* Refuted so many times, not worth discussion. (see my links)
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...m+debunked

extensively edited per Bucky

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
24-08-2012, 01:40 PM
RE: Thomas Aquinas and a debate
Thanks guys, keep'em coming.

I love this forum Smile

Atheism is a religion like OFF is a TV channel !!!

Proud of my genetic relatives Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: