Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

The "First Cause" is supposedly a proof for the existence of god.
All you have done is state your definition of god to prove the "First Cause" proof for god

God is god because god is god.
Circular non-logic..

“ But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would
be no first mover.”


The objection Aquinas assumes a first mover (God) without proving there to be one. Thus, his argument is circular. The objection misunderstands Aquinas' meaning of movement.

Movement, per Aquinas' context is that of ongoing causation of movement. In his explanation he states “as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.” The hand is continuous and present during the movement. The hand is the ongoing causation of the staff moving, because the staff has no power to move on its own.

for the staff to move something has to cause the movement. The staff's movement continues, as long as, the hand is continuous and present.

We do not see any other external force causing the staff to move, besides the hand and we do not see any external force moving the hand. The hand is the cause of the movement, while the hand itself is not being moved by another. The hand is the first mover in this example and Aquinas is not positing that the hand is God. Thus, it is not a circular argument.


Aquinas is stating, in modern verbiage, But this cannot go on to infinity, because there would be nothing causing the movement. Accordingly, ultimately there is a continuous and present mover, which is not being continuously and presently moved by another.

Some power must initiate the movement, cause. Logically, simultaneous causation and sequential causation cannot be infinite. Observed motion, or causality, in the real world, cannot have gone on for an infinite sequence in the past. If we observe a cause, logic forces us to conclude that there is a power (first cause), that is not being caused by another. This power is what Aquinas calls God.

Hope the above helps.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Some power must initiate the movement, cause.

Why?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Logically, simultaneous causation and sequential causation cannot be infinite.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Observed motion, or causality, in the real world, cannot have gone on for an infinite sequence in the past.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If we observe a cause, logic forces us to conclude that there is a power (first cause), that is not being caused by another.

How does logic force us to conclude that?

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

This power is what Aquinas calls God.

Which god? Zeus? Xenu? Vishnu? Odin?

Why must this "power" be sapient, i.e., why must it be a god and not a boson?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why?
Why not?
Why not?
How does logic force us to conclude that?
Which god? Zeus? Xenu? Vishnu? Odin?

Why must this "power" be sapient, i.e., why must it be a god and not a boson?

Why not? Because that is what his proof states.

How does logic force the conclusion? If You want to understand the details of Aquinas' proofs? Buy a book, which explains Aquinas' metaphysics, take a philosophy course, etc, about the details of the Summa

This specific proof does not identify a specific god. The proof is about the higher power which moves an object while being continuous and present during the movement, without the continuous and present mover being moved by another.

If you want to prove Aquinas' proofs wrong, do an experiment proving a table caused itself to come into existence. Prove the table came into existence without some higher power initiating (causing) the table to come into existence.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Why not? Because that is what his proof states.

What his proof "states" is beside the point. If the proof is invalid then what it states remains unproven.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If You want to understand the details of Aquinas' proofs? Buy a book, which explains Aquinas' metaphysics, take a philosophy course, etc, about the details of the Summa

What makes you think I have not done all of that? I did go to college you know.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

This specific proof does not identify a specific god.

In my experience you are the first theist that has ever admitted that. Congratulations.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The proof is about the higher power which moves an object while being continuous and present during the movement, without the continuous and present mover being moved by another.

But the proof makes several tacit assumptions: for instance, that space-time is flat, which is highly doubtful. And that time itself is not asymptotic, also highly doubtful.

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

If you want to prove Aquinas' proofs wrong, do an experiment proving a table caused itself to come into existence. Prove the table came into existence without some higher power initiating (causing) the table to come into existence.

Why a table, which is a fairly complex object? Why not the primal singularity? Why not a boson or a quark?

[Actor]

Leviticus 21

16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,

19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;*

21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

*stones broken = crushed testicles

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

What makes you think I have not done all of that? I did go to college you know.

Most college students never study Aquinas.
Students in the Faculty of Science are even less likely to.
You were a lucky student if you did study his works.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Most college students never study Aquinas.

Where did you get that idea?

On the other hand, if you mean "most college students never study..." then I'd be inclined to agree.

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Students in the Faculty of Science are even less likely to.

Again, where did you get that idea? In order to earn my degree in Science I had to study a lot of other stuff like history, government, biology, art, philosophy, etc.

Originally Posted by Greyfox

You were a lucky student if you did study his works.

If you say so. I think I understand his arguments as well as you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

This specific proof does not identify a specific god. The proof is about the higher power which moves an object while being continuous and present during the movement, without the continuous and present mover being moved by another.

This does not remove the problem of an infinite regress. Nor anything else you said. Yes conscious beings can inmate the movement of unconscious non living items. By itself this is correct as far as it goes, however there are possible causes that give rise to conscious beings.

1-Evolution or
2-God

If it is god that inmates and precedes man, then using the worldly causation of "the hand moving the stick" as an example of first cause, fails simply because the hand ITSELF must rely on a preceding cause. Outside of "worldly" causes. So it is only an opinion that the logical regression of the first cause should stop at step 2, after the worldly cause of the human hand.

You must invoke "Special pleading" to stop the infinite regression at step 2 or god

Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption.

Western theists are proposing anthropomorphic worldly phenomena to "prove" the creation of the world itself. Hate to tell you but you guys are devaluing concepts much bigger than what is easily understood. As I have said, the western propensity to "deify" is the problem, and one that does not present such a conundrum in eastern thought. Golden calves become standard fare in western thought.

Once again....

If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot exist, because God is not nothing. If that premise is true that “nothing comes from nothing,” and if God is something, then you have just shot yourself in the foot.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

“ But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would
be no first mover.”


The objection Aquinas assumes a first mover (God) without proving there to be one. Thus, his argument is circular. The objection misunderstands Aquinas' meaning of movement.

Movement, per Aquinas' context is that of ongoing causation of movement. In his explanation he states “as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.” The hand is continuous and present during the movement. The hand is the ongoing causation of the staff moving, because the staff has no power to move on its own.

for the staff to move something has to cause the movement. The staff's movement continues, as long as, the hand is continuous and present.

We do not see any other external force causing the staff to move, besides the hand and we do not see any external force moving the hand. The hand is the cause of the movement, while the hand itself is not being moved by another. The hand is the first mover in this example and Aquinas is not positing that the hand is God. Thus, it is not a circular argument.


Aquinas is stating, in modern verbiage, But this cannot go on to infinity, because there would be nothing causing the movement. Accordingly, ultimately there is a continuous and present mover, which is not being continuously and presently moved by another.

Some power must initiate the movement, cause. Logically, simultaneous causation and sequential causation cannot be infinite. Observed motion, or causality, in the real world, cannot have gone on for an infinite sequence in the past. If we observe a cause, logic forces us to conclude that there is a power (first cause), that is not being caused by another. This power is what Aquinas calls God.

Hope the above helps.

You blew it in the last paragraph as soon as you used the world "logically". That doesn't compute with Hcap. Be prepared for an elaborate math lesson.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by SMTW

Some power must initiate the movement, cause. Logically, simultaneous causation and sequential causation cannot be infinite. Observed motion, or causality, in the real world, cannot have gone on for an infinite sequence in the past. If we observe a cause, logic forces us to conclude that there is a power (first cause), that is not being caused by another. This power is what Aquinas calls God..

Originally Posted by boxcar

You blew it in the last paragraph as soon as you used the world "logically". That doesn't compute with Hcap. Be prepared for an elaborate math lesson.

Here is that rather SIMPLE math lesson. Boxcar can't do arithmetic let alone reason mathematically.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Once again....

If nothing comes from nothing, then God cannot exist, because God is not nothing. If that premise is true that “nothing comes from nothing,” and if God is something, then you have just shot yourself in the foot.

Explain specifically how you reached your conclusion of foot shooting. Are the major and minor premises self-defeating? If so, show us how they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

For example, I could write: "If Nothing comes from Nothing, then God must be self-existent and the ultimate cause for all that exists, since only an ontological entiity can beget existence." Your syllogism wrongly assumes that the existence of God cannot be accounted for since Nothing can only come from Nothing. But this isn't true with an eternal, self-existing being. God owes his existence to no thing. Stated differently: God's eternal existence is contingent on nothing. Therefore, no feet have been shot!

[hcap]

My specific criticism of Aquinas first mover "proof" for god.

There is a logical fallacy stating events within the universe don't necessarily project out to and before the entire universe indicating truths of the universe as a whole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
Fallacy of composition

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). For example: "This wheel is made of rubber, therefore the vehicle to which it is a part is also made of rubber." This is clearly fallacious, because vehicles are often made with a variety of parts, many of which may not be made of rubber.

Or

No atoms are alive. Therefore, nothing made of atoms is alive.

If someone stands up out of their seat at a cricket match, they can see better. Therefore, if everyone stands up, they can all see better.

If a runner runs faster, he can win the race. Therefore, if all the runners run faster, they can all win the race. Athletic competitions are examples of zero-sum games, wherein the winner wins by preventing all other competitors from winning.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Explain specifically how you reached your conclusion of foot shooting. Are the major and minor premises self-defeating? If so, show us how they violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Shove your version of Law of Non-Contradiction along with your innumerous scientific , mathematical and religious theories where the sun don't shine. Try interstellar space where there are numerous segments of a perfect vacuum and no containers or fences required to define and surround those so called "empty" segments.


Use this device to scientifically record all your lunatic bogus theories in the proper order. I honestly don't give a shit whether you use "logical time" or "chronological time" Whatever floats your ARk.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

My specific criticism of Aquinas first mover "proof" for god.

There is a logical fallacy stating events within the universe don't necessarily project out to and before the entire universe indicating truths of the universe as a whole

Are you incoherent much? Care to explain to us what you're attempting to say?

Also, according to the examples you have provided for your logical fallacy, they cannot apply to God since God is pure spirit whereas the physical universe is not! Also, unlike the tire on the car example, God is not an integral part of the universe, since God has no parts. God is simple, i.e. pure Spirit.

Better hunt for another "logical fallacy" 'cause the one you have provided is D.O.A.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Shove your version of Law of Non-Contradiction along with your innumerous scientific , mathematical and religious theories where the sun don't shine. Try interstellar space where there are numerous segments of a perfect vacuum and no containers or fences required to define and surround those so called "empty" segments.

Then scientists should be able to capture one of those "numerous segments" and prove it to the world. Real scientists (even the godless ones!) know there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. Prove it to yourself. Search the web for a scientist who believes in the existence of a perfect vacuum and post a link for us to the site.

And by the way, there is only one version of the Law of Noncontradiction. And that is the version you hate vehemently because, as a truth detector, it can sniff out BS 10 miles upwind from falsehood.