| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Proof of God.; ...episode 3: Necessity. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 11 2006, 06:52 PM (308 Views) | |
| The 89th Key | Jan 11 2006, 06:52 PM Post #1 |
|
--------------- Proof of God by Saint Thomas Aquinas The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God. --------------- This borders on darwinian theory...except with a conclusion about a beginning...if that makes any sense. |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 12 2006, 06:29 AM Post #2 |
|
Bump...posted this last night, maybe a little early. |
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 12 2006, 08:14 AM Post #3 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
'All call god'? No, that he calls god. Sorry 89th, it reads to me like much ado about nothing. Actually, it takes me back to my younger days.
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 12 2006, 09:31 AM Post #4 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Sue: Just for a little historical reference, the passage was written in the latter half of the 13th century. He was in dialogue with Catholic, Jewish and Moslem scholars in the university systems. The phrase is perfectly acceptable to his audience. As bright as Aquinas was, he wasn't foreseeing the ACLU or Madeline Murray O'Hare. Take a
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 12 2006, 09:38 AM Post #5 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
Neither the ALCU or this Irish woman have any effect on how we in the Great White North view these theological questions. BTW, who or what are these? Are they that important that we should know about them? More importantly do they support the retention of the *notwithstanding clause* in the Charter? If they don't, then to hell with them!
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 12 2006, 10:32 AM Post #6 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
We should get the CRA to investigate them, too.
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 12 2006, 10:41 AM Post #7 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
IT: I'm well aware of Sir Thomas' antiquity, thank you. I'm not the one who is using his ancient ramblings to try and make some point about the existence or non-existence of god. As I've said before, and as you have stated as well, he is preaching to the converted, and certainly does not have any arguments to convince others of the validity of his beliefs. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 12 2006, 10:58 AM Post #8 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
[size=7] Them's fightin' words!!!! [/size]
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 12 2006, 11:49 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
right...
Doesn't seem to follow on from the first point in any shape or form, but ok... Infact rereading this, immediately you can see that the author is setting himself up to fall into a semantic trap. To suggest certain "things" may either exist or not exist seems to posit the existence of non-existant "things". There are no "things" that do not exist, there are simply _ideas_, concepts, that do no match reality. A "thing" must exist to be a "thing".
Patently false: If a given property is not conserved, ie. the amount of it can vary, it does not follow that the property cannot have always existed and cannot always exist. One can concieve of any number of phenomena that could _in principle_ vary and yet continue to vary for ever. A reasonable example is perhaps electromagnetic radiation, the amount of electromagnatic radiation is not conserved, i can do a chemical reaction that absorbs some wavelength of light decreasing the total amount of free EM around. And yet rather than assuming EM will not last forever, everything we currently understand suggests just the opposite - in the end radiation is all that there will be.
Uhh
....
'Now' is a statement of time, a statement of time is a nontrivial statement about the nature of the universe, therefore if you posit time you posit something existing. To say that "now nothing exists" is infact positing something exists.
What nonsense, if we accept that variance ie. the possiblitiy of "creation" and "destruction" implies finiteness, it does not follow that intelligence or a lack of "accidents" is required, all that is required is _invariance_ - something that is conserved and hence does not change (total energy for example)
Ok.. every necessary thing? As opposed to unnecessary things, that are neither caused not not caused? Right....
This is clearly wrong, there is nothing _in principle_ that prevents infinite regression. If it is logically possible for the universe to have no end point, it is equally logically possible for the universe to have no beginning. Just because there are ideas that are intuitively alien, and that feel "wrong" does not mean reality cannot behave that way.
"Existing through it's own nature" is a nonsense statement, one can perhaps posit acausal phenomena but describing them as "existing through their own nature" only serves to confuse. Theentire argument fails on so many levels, demonstrating why _in today's scientifically enlightened age_ so much philosophy is such a spectacular waste of space. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| pianojerome | Jan 12 2006, 11:58 AM Post #10 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So basically, the claim is there has to have been a start to everything, and that that start cannot have been caused by anything but itself, and therefore there must have been a god to start everything. One question that I have is, is/was there anything else that could have just suddenly appeared at the beginning of everything? Perhaps God just spontaneously came in to being, without any cause, or perhaps whatever matter existed in the beginning just spontaneously came into being. Just as a God may have created himself, so too matter may have just suddenly appeared. |
| Sam | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 12 2006, 02:17 PM Post #11 |
|
The difference is God is God...matter isn't a "being" or anything like that. |
![]() |
|
| AlbertaCrude | Jan 12 2006, 02:37 PM Post #12 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
actually it brings me back to this statement " A proof is a proof. What kind of proof ? It's a proof. A proof is proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it is proven." |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Jan 12 2006, 02:56 PM Post #13 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Nor does it need to be. Who says only "beings" can be acausal? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jan 12 2006, 03:01 PM Post #14 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
89th, You are one of the blind faithful. Why are you seeking proof that does not exist? |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| dolmansaxlil | Jan 12 2006, 03:15 PM Post #15 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
*snicker That was such a classic moment. |
|
"Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst." ~ Henri Cartier-Bresson My Flickr Photostream | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 12 2006, 05:18 PM Post #16 |
|
Why are you so adamant about apathy? |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jan 12 2006, 05:26 PM Post #17 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It's not apathy 89th. It's logic. Logic and a god do not mix. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Jan 12 2006, 05:28 PM Post #18 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
That's why they don't teach mathematics in theology (and vice versa), I suspect. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 12 2006, 05:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Mark, your blind rejection is unfortunate. |
![]() |
|
| Mark | Jan 12 2006, 05:40 PM Post #20 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
It is not a blind rejection. It is a rejection based on absence of evidence, and absence of proof. |
|
___.___ (_]===* o 0 When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Jan 12 2006, 05:47 PM Post #21 |
|
I pray that you'll be able to one day see the glory of God.
|
![]() |
|
| sue | Jan 12 2006, 09:24 PM Post #22 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That sums it up quite nicely. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Jan 12 2006, 09:25 PM Post #23 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Can you logically demonstrate that? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








10:58 AM Jul 11