17 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerGee LH, what would Acquinas have to say about the belief of these "Christians" that your God is killing millions of people by giving them a disease for having sex when they shouldn't? What part of the "revealed plan" that your OT monster God gave us is that in?
Ever heard of HIV AIDS?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
No, LH, I'm not a Deist but I am familiar with the basic philosophy. If any of them ever bothered to refute Acquinas or Augustine's or any of the hundreds of other Christian philosophers, I don't know. Or care. Religious philosophy bores me to tears and as Acquinas' position is that reason is not used anyway but to confirm what is accepted a priori b ...[text shortened]... afraid to say so; a Deist isn't afraid to say that he doesn't know all the answers about God.
no1: ... Acquinas' position is that reason is not used anyway but to confirm what is accepted a priori by the "authority of God", he is not making an argument that can ever be refuted anyway, at least in his and your minds.
That's just bad reasoning.
Aquinas is saying, "If A is true then B is true."
Now, if Aquinas was starting from something "accepted a priori by the 'authority of God'", then what you say would be true; i.e. if A cannot be refuted (because it is known solely through Revelation), then B cannot be refuted.
But that is [b]not what Aquinas is saying here at all[/b]. He is not using philosophical arguments to expand on Revelation* - he is using philosophical arguments to confirm Revelation. In other words, he is saying that B is known through Revelation, but can also be proved through philosophy; i.e. A is known from reason and Nature.
So, if his logic is faulty (B does not necessarily follow from A) - then it can be refuted by anyone - regardless of their religious persuasions.
no1: Acquinas[sic] did not base his arguments on "nature and reason" despite his claim to since he reached the conclusion first and then attempts to justify it.
Is my proof of Pythagoras' Theorem invalid simply because I already knew what the final formula was? Don't be silly. If Aquinas' logic is correct then the final conclusion is correct no matter how he first arrived at it.
no1: It does not follow that the Creator is "outside time" since we don't even know what that would mean - it's another platitude theists say without any idea of what such a concept is.
That we cannot imagine what it means to be "outside time" does not mean we cannot conceptualise it. Every college physics or mathematics student knows how to conceptualise events in more than three dimensions, even if they cannot imagine it.
Time is an intrinsic property of our Universe (more precisely - Time is relative to every observer in the Universe). For instance, it is meaningless to speak of Time before the Big Bang.
Since God created the Universe, it would be paradoxical to think of Him being subject to physical properties of the Universe - including Time.
no1: Your leap that the watch is static to the Watchmaker is absurd; if he starts the watch and leaves it to work according to his design it changes, it is designed to change.
Change implies the passage of time. Since the Creator is not subject to Time, Change is meaningless to Him - He does not experience or observe Change as we do.
no1: Is this universe all there is? Who knows?
Even if God existed in a super-Universe where He has His own version of Time, my arguments above would still hold.
---
* Not yet, anyway. He will do so later in the Summa.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe I will. But it's simply lousy logic for you to keep asserting that Aquinas' arguments are invalid simply because he is using them to 'confirm' rather than 'discover' his views.
More snotnosery. If you want to expound to us idiots what the brilliant Acquinas' ideas are, why don't you start a thread on this clown? Please mention that he states that he accepts ALL the articles of the Christian faith a priori and uses (misuses) "reason" to confirm what the faith has already told him.
Pick up any maths or logic textbook - most of the proofs will have the result stated up front. In fact, a whole class of proofs - the proof by contradiction or reductio- depends on that-which-is-to-be-proved (quod erat demonstrandum) being stated up front!
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by David C
Please. Aquinas' entire premise is an attempt to prove the existence of god. He does so in a most unreasonable fashion, as pointed out by no1.
Don't be purposely asinine. That's my territory.
DC: Please. Aquinas' entire premise is an attempt to prove the existence of god. He does so in a most unreasonable fashion, as pointed out by no1.
You really have no clue what Aquinas is up to (and I'm willing to bet you've never read more than a few hundred words - if that - from the Summa). I suggest Peter Kreeft's Summa of the Summa to get a good introduction.
no1 got Aquinas' argument completely wrong - and then wrongly referred to his own strawman as "circular".
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAquinas would probably think dj2 was an idiot, but would try to deal with him as charitably as possible.
Gee LH, what would Acquinas have to say about the belief of these "Christians" that your God is killing millions of people by giving them a disease for having sex when they shouldn't? What part of the "revealed plan" that your OT monster God gave us is that in?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerPLEEZE. Acquinas is not talking math; he is talking about God and a specific God in particular. There is simply no point in arguing logically with someone who, no matter what, will accept his ultimate premise whether it is logical or not. He accepts it on the authority of God's revealed word, period. As shown by your amended "Watchmaker" analogy, both you and Acquinas pour religious based "truths" into the argument which cannot be even questioned. Someone trying to prove a theorem will accept if it is shown that his proof is faulty; you and Acquinas will not as you will ALWAYS say that since the revealed truth is, by definition correct.
Maybe I will. But it's simply lousy logic for you to keep asserting that Aquinas' arguments are invalid simply because he is using them to 'confirm' rather than 'discover' his views.
Pick up any maths or logic textbook - most of the proofs will have the result stated up front. In fact, a whole class of proofs - the proof by contradiction or [ ...[text shortened]... epends on that-which-is-to-be-proved (quod erat demonstrandum) being stated up front![/b]
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm sorry, it may not be technically "circular" snotnose, but it is still idiotic and unreasonable. If you have actually read all of Acquinas' crap, I truly pity you. I suggest if people want to read something worthwhile they stay as far away as possible from this tedious, medieval claptrap and pick up Paine's Age of Reason if they are philosophically minded. Otherwise, for some laughs and useful philosophy try Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller.DC: Please. Aquinas' entire premise is an attempt to prove the existence of god. He does so in a most unreasonable fashion, as pointed out by no1.
You really have no clue what Aquinas is up to (and I'm willing to bet you've never read more than a few hundred words - if that - from the Summa). I suggest Peter Kreeft' ...[text shortened]... nas' argument completely wrong - and then wrongly referred to his own strawman as "circular".
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have no objection to someone reading Plato if they're looking for metaphysics, or political philosophy, or ethics. But if the topic under discussion is natural theology, then Aquinas is probably the best place to look (you might have to brush up your Aristotle first).
What do you value about Aquinas? I mean, why should someone spend their limited time reading him rather than, say, Plato?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
PLEEZE. Acquinas is not talking math; he is talking about God and a specific God in particular. There is simply no point in arguing logically with someone who, no matter what, will accept his ultimate premise whether it is logical or not. He accepts it on the authority of God's revealed word, period. As shown by your amended "Watchmaker" analogy, both ...[text shortened]... cquinas will not as you will ALWAYS say that since the revealed truth is, by definition correct.
no1: There is simply no point in arguing logically with someone who, no matter what, will accept his ultimate premise whether it is logical or not.
Ironic you should say that...
(For the nth time) The validity of Aquinas' philosophical arguments do NOT depend on his own views or how he PERSONALLY came to hold those views. They depend ONLY on the validity of his premises and validity of his philosophical method. And the relevant sections of the Summa that we have been talking about do not start from Christian premises.
When you've calmed down, go back and read over my posts - perhaps you'll see what I mean.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI will get to Paine in due course...
I'm sorry, it may not be technically "circular" snotnose, but it is still idiotic and unreasonable. If you have actually read all of Acquinas' crap, I truly pity you. I suggest if people want to read something worthwhile they stay as far away as possible from this tedious, medieval claptrap and pick up Paine's Age of Reason if they are philosophically minded. Otherwise, for some laughs and useful philosophy try Kurt Vonnegut or Joseph Heller.