Aquinas gets his comeuppance?

Originally posted by pyxelated
I've already dealt with my "existent observer" silliness, so I'll let that go here.

[b]Regarding the requirements you asked for, an observer has to be an epistemic object. Aquinas does not explain how and by which means G-d "became" an epistemic object, he merely speaks of "faith" and "revelation".

It seems to me that an observed would hav ...[text shortened]... al argument for God's existence doesn't mean it isn't possible. 🙂[/b]

I hope this part of BB's statement will get further consideration:

"But all this jazz is not justified, because Aquinas merely accepts blindly as existent an “epistemic object” (G-d) out of the blue (“blue”, over here, are the so called Holy Scripture and everything else that the beleiver has to accept blindly because it comes from an authoritative agent, because it is supposed to be the Word of G-d). Aquinas does not have a honest way to establish the existence of his G-d by means of using his mind, he just accepts blindly his unjustified religious dogma and then he is using it as the cornerstone on which his Summa is constructed. "

Pyx, so far, I believe, your response to it is as follows:

"... Convincing you that Aquinas's beliefs rest on something more (or less) than "blind faith," on the other hand, is a task I'm not sure I'm up to, yet at least. But just as our inability to comprehend God doesn't preclude our being eternally happy with Him in Heaven (if we love Him more than we do ourselves), my (perhaps not permanent) inability to make a convincing rational argument for God's existence doesn't mean it isn't possible. 🙂 "

BB dispenses with 'all that jazz' on the basis of Aquinas' ultimately being dependent on faith in revealed truth.

Remembering that this discussion was originally split on (roughly speaking) whether doing good is good on account of a good God existing, or on account of the value of flourishing; it becomes important to settle four things: Does Aquinas believe that (1) faith in revealed truth is a genuine source of knowledge separate from reason; (2) such faith provides important knowledge not obtainable via reason alone; (3) among that important knowledge not obtainable by reason alone is (a) the existence of God and/or (b) the essential role of God in morality and (4) if 1 - 3 are agreed to be true, BB has debunked Aquinas as regards *reasoned* belief in God's existence and role in morality.

Note that this does not debunk faith, it only debunks any pretense that Aquinas thought reason alone can lead to these beliefs.

This is my opinion, anyway.

Some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality:

Quoting Aquinas:

We have a more perfect knowledge of God by grace than by natural reason. Which is proved thus. The knowledge which we have by natural reason contains two things: images derived from the sensible objects; and the natural intelligible light, enabling us to abstract from them intelligible conceptions. Now in both of these, human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace. For the intellect's natural light is strengthened by the infusion of gratuitous light.[4]

[Faith is] a kind of knowledge, inasmuch as the intellect is determined by faith to some knowable object.[5]

Faith does not involve a search by natural reason to prove what is believed. But it does involve a form of inquiry unto things by which a person is led to belief, e.g. whether they are spoken by God and confirmed by miracles.[6]

[T]he object of faith is that which is absent from our understanding. As Augustine said, “we believe that which is absent, but we see that which is present.”[7]

[O]pinion includes a fear that the other part [of the contradiction] is true, and scientific knowledge excludes such fear. Similarly, it is impossible to have faith and scientific knowledge about the same thing.[8]

unquote

Originally posted by JS357
I hope this part of BB's statement will get further consideration:

"But all this jazz is not justified, because Aquinas merely accepts blindly as existent an “epistemic object” (G-d) out of the blue (“blue”, over here, are the so called Holy Scripture and everything else that the beleiver has to accept blindly because it comes from an authoritative agent, b le to have faith and scientific knowledge about the same thing.[8]

unquote

Nor do I debunk faith—I just don’t recognize it as some (mysterious) form of cognition. I do, however, think that something like FMF’s (writing as JW Booth at the time) “intuitive theism” is valid—especially because FMF refused to speculate further, or to argue that his intuition must be correct.

_______________________________________________________

As an aside, I also think that aesthetics are important—at least that dimension is as important (maybe more important) in my life as reason . I find different religious and philosophical expressions of non-dualism (my basic metaphysical stance) to be “aesthetically meaningful”, without regard to underlying truth propositions. My particular reading of Christianity, for example, has been accused of an attempt to “Buddha-size” Christianity. I don’t see it that way (and am closer to Eastern expressions, such as that of St. Gregory of Nyssa—who really pushed the panentheistic envelope pretty far). But I am no more interested in what are the “real” criteria for being a “True Christian™” than I am in the “real” criteria for being a “True Taoist™”, or… I am a non-exclusivist as well as a non-dualist. (And I could take Aquinas’ statement of God’s essence being existence in a gestaltic non-dualistic sense, but that seems not to be how he means it.)

That is why I often use the phrase “religious expression”, rather than just “religion” (in the sense that that word refers to a doctrinal/dogmatic body of truth propositions). At the level of aesthetic expression of my—well, I want to use Jose Ortega y Gasset’s formulation, underlying his existentialism: my “yo soy yo, y me circunstancia”, in existential inseparability—religious terms are more like music than metaphysics, more like Beethoven than biology, etc. (And that “Ortegean” existentialism also makes it difficult for me to accept easily some of the talk about essence, at least in any way that treats essence as either epistemeically (for sure) or even ontically (maybe) prior to existence. I’d like to try to present Ortega’s argument on here sometime…

Originally posted by vistesd
Since Aquinas follows Aristotle, it seems that his main proof ends up positing an unmoved mover in order to avoid an infinite regression. His notion of an unmoved mover is that its essence (quiddity) and existence are one. However, the need for an extra-natural unmoved mover has been refuted on here more than once on several grounds. I have tried to sort tial dimensionality that allows identification of an entity because it has spatial boundaries.

Lord, have mercy! I have a reply to your first post almost ready, and I come in here and find two more big ones waiting.

(edit: and not only that, js357 is jumping back in 🙂 )

This is going to be fun. But it's going to take a long time. You're going to have to be patient with me; as I said before, I'm not only a slow chess player, I'm a slow thinker. The longer I ruminate, the higher the milk-to-methane ratio 🙂

Originally posted by pyxelated
Lord, have mercy! I have a reply to your first post almost ready, and I come in here and find two more big ones waiting.

(edit: and not only that, js357 is jumping back in 🙂 )

This is going to be fun. But it's going to take a long time. You're going to have to be patient with me; as I said before, I'm not only a slow chess player, I'm a slow thinker. The longer I ruminate, the higher the milk-to-methane ratio 🙂

No worries, you don't have to reply to me. If my post has content you want to address, it will be OK to toss it in to your reply to BB, since my request was to provide further reply to his post in one particular area.

Originally posted by pyxelated
Lord, have mercy! I have a reply to your first post almost ready, and I come in here and find two more big ones waiting.

(edit: and not only that, js357 is jumping back in 🙂 )

This is going to be fun. But it's going to take a long time. You're going to have to be patient with me; as I said before, I'm not only a slow chess player, I'm a slow thinker. The longer I ruminate, the higher the milk-to-methane ratio 🙂

LOL!!! Please take your time!!! It was really my rushing that led to too many posts--and a sleepless night thinking about essence and existence, Aquinas and Ortega... 🙁 Yeah, fun it is, though! 🙂 Really, I am glad that you started this thread, but, as Monsiuer Ibrahim said in tha novella Monsiuer Ibrahim and the Flowers of the Koran (Ibrahim played by Omar Sharif in the film version):

"Slowness is the key to happiness!"

Originally posted by pyxelated
I'm retracting the first sentence. It was simply wrong. 🙂

God [b]is an existent observer, but He is unique among existent observers. black beetle's statement appeared to me to be putting God in the same class as all other existent observers, and my first sentence was a clumsy attempt to distinguish Him from others.[/b]

Edit: “God is an existent observer, but He is unique among existent observers. black beetle's statement appeared to me to be putting God in the same class as all other existent observers, and my first sentence was a clumsy attempt to distinguish Him from others.”


“Observer” is a physical system capable of memorizing and/ or handling elements of reality; an element of reality is any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information, therefore “observers” are all that exist: universe is an observer, you are an observer, an animal is an observer, a piece of wood is an observer too, and a cloud, a wave, a photon, a dog and whatever is existent. Our very discussion per se is nothing but a definition of physical existence. Therefore: everything that is not completely expressible or finite, thus an observer, it is non-existent.

Kindly please leave your theology aside in order to proceed. I argue that if G-d (the way you and the Christian theists perceive this entity) is indeed existent, then G-d is made of elements of reality, otherwise G-d is non-existent. I explained you as clearly I could that Aquinas does not demonstrate G-d’s elements of reality. He merely accepts blindly a specific dogma based on faith and revelation alone, which both are not a sufficient basis of knowledge. However, as long as G-d’s specific elements of reality are not defined, G-d remains a non-existent product of the human fantasy.

Back to Aquinas: in my opinion, he had first to establish the exact epistemic instruments by which this specific epistemic object (observer G-d) is accessed. Then he had to state why he proposed these specific epistemic instruments that he accepted, and how their function must be understood. Aquinas’ variations should start from there. However Aquinas does not list other “epistemic instruments” but “faith” and “revelation”, therefore his core theology is bad philosophy (because it does not hold).
And, back to you: first bring forth the epistemic instruments that are necessary so that you can establish the existence of the observer/ epistemic object “G-d” (faith and revelation are not acceptable epistemic instruments!). Your variations should start from there. Then, we can discuss about the way you established the specific means of knowledge which ensured you that the epistemic object G-d is existent.
😵

Originally posted by vistesd
Since Aquinas follows Aristotle, it seems that his main proof ends up positing an unmoved mover in order to avoid an infinite regression. His notion of an unmoved mover is that its essence (quiddity) and existence are one. However, the need for an extra-natural unmoved mover has been refuted on here more than once on several grounds. I have tried to sort ...[text shortened]... tial dimensionality that allows identification of an entity because it has spatial boundaries.

Thank you😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “God is an existent observer, but He is unique among existent observers. black beetle's statement appeared to me to be putting God in the same class as all other existent observers, and my first sentence was a clumsy attempt to distinguish Him from others.”


“Observer” is a physical system capable of memorizing and/ or handling elements of rea ...[text shortened]... he specific means of knowledge which ensured you that the epistemic object G-d is existent.
😵

It is futile, we can't understand the mind of God. We should try
to understand our own mind maybe if we have the time to spare.
I know, you will say we are not trying to understand the mind of God.
Good.

bb, I'm going to split this up into multiple replies. This is going to be a long thread, I can tell already. 🙂

Since you appear to want to start by defining things (a very worthwhile endeavor), I'll just reformat your definitions for my own benefit in analyzing them. As I told vistesd earlier, I have limited time to reply, and I'm a slow thinker, so we're going to have a somewhat leisurely conversation. I hope this doesn't prove tiresome for either of you, especially since both of you appear to be pretty quick on the draw, and to have quite a bit of this to hand already. I have to plod along as I can. (They called Aquinas the Dumb Ox. I guess I'll have to take the other side of the creche and be the Dumb Ass. Not that I'm fit to be there, but in this forum I guess I'm what's available 🙂 )

Definitions (according to black beetle):

Observer: a physical system capable of memorizing and/ or handling elements of reality.

Element of reality: any exchangeable and finite packet of physical information.

From the above definitions bb infers that observers are all that exist; that the universe is an observer, you are an observer, an animal is an observer, a piece of wood is an observer too, and a cloud, a wave, a photon, a dog and whatever is existent. Further, nothing that is not completely expressible and finite (and thus an observer) exists.

(I haven't yet tried to discover what other assumptions are lurking about unstated here. I don't think the two definitions above suffice on their own to support the statements derived so far. If you'd like to expand on them, feel free to do so.)

Our very discussion per se is nothing but a definition of physical existence.

And therefore, according to bb, it is completely expressible (indeed, completely expressed) and finite, and has a definite, normative physical representation that can be located precisely in space and time, which all participants, as well as all readers, will instantly recognize and identify as being "our discussion."

Correct so far?

Originally posted by pyxelated
Here's the unhijacked version of black beetle's shootdown of Aquinas, with responses by yours truly.

bb said:
[b]Sure thing;

Aquinas suggests that G-d is an existent observer, and he tries to overcome his inability to simply state "well, this is the epistemic object in question, you have it in front of you and it is as real as any other existent obs ...[text shortened]... off my duff and do a little thinking this weekend 🙂 )

I'm not the student of Aquinas that you art, but from reading what you wrote, I gather Thomas drew a distinction between the knowable and the unknowable God. As a Christian, I don't find this at all perplexing. There are things about God that we know, from His word. There are things about God we do not know and were not meant to know. I find it frustrating at times, but it's there in the Bible in black and white and, while I'm not one of the folks that believe that every jot and tittle was written by the big G Himself, I do believe the gist of what Aquinas appears to have been putting forth. And you're right--he didn't bother to explain the unknowable things about God because it would have been folly. By definition, it's a futile endeavor. As much as I want to knw what the seven thunders told John NOT to write down (in Revelation), it's clear I wasn't meant to know, so I have to deal with it, along with the myriad other mysteries of the triune God---why does He allow suffering, why did He allow evil to enter the world, how'd he get penguins AND polar bears on the ark, what swallowed Jonah, a whale shark? a marlin?, and how did He create all this magnificence and still have a plan for ones as seemingly insignificant as me?

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is futile, we can't understand the mind of God. We should try
to understand our own mind maybe if we have the time to spare.
I know, you will say we are not trying to understand the mind of God.
Good.

For the time being I don't "try to understand the mind of G-d". I am simply asking (you, our pyxelated, our Pink Floyd, any theist regardless of her/ his religion and/or denomination) to define which epistemic instruments did you use in order to conclude that the observer G-d is indeed existent
😵

This thread seems to be going in two different directions. Accordingly, to keep my head from splitting and with the agreement of both black beetle and vistesd, I'm going to split the thread. black beetle and I will keep going here, and vistesd and I will carry on in another thread (called something like "Aquinas's Five Ways" ). vistesd, if you want to pull your contributions to this thread over there, please go ahead and do so. If you do nothing in the next day or so, I will take your silence as consent and do it for you 🙂, merging your posts starting with the "null hypothesis" one into the initial post on that thread (stitching them together with whatever minimal introductory material seems necessary).

What little time I have has just been further reduced by the beginning of the school year (and thus CCD, or "Sunday school," at church, where I have agreed to substitute-teach, at least)... but that may work out to our advantage, as it allows me to justify spending time studying Aquinas as class prep 🙂 We may be at this till Christmas or beyond!

Originally posted by black beetle
For the time being I don't "try to understand the mind of G-d". I am simply asking (you, our pyxelated, our Pink Floyd, any theist regardless of her/ his religion and/or denomination) to define which epistemic instruments did you use in order to conclude that the observer G-d is indeed existent
😵

I too await, as quietly as I can, the next part of pyx' reply to your post. It might address your statement "He [Aquinas] merely accepts blindly a specific dogma based on faith and revelation alone, which both are not a sufficient basis of knowledge. However, as long as G-d’s specific elements of reality are not defined, G-d remains a non-existent product of the human fantasy." I think this is the crux.

I don't expect a reply to this post.

Originally posted by pyxelated
This thread seems to be going in two different directions. Accordingly, to keep my head from splitting and with the agreement of both black beetle and vistesd, I'm going to split the thread. black beetle and I will keep going here, and vistesd and I will carry on in another thread (called something like "Aquinas's Five Ways" ). vistesd, if you want to pul ...[text shortened]... nding time studying Aquinas as class prep 🙂 We may be at this till Christmas or beyond!

All debates, all discusions can "go to different directions" at some level, and this is not bad at all. Methinks we are all able to cope with any branch that may evolve at this thread -no stress, it's indeed fun. Needless to "split" the thread, just proceed the way you please and let everybody do her/ his thing along the arising lines
😵

Originally posted by JS357
I too await, as quietly as I can, the next part of pyx' reply to your post. It might address your statement "He [Aquinas] merely accepts blindly a specific dogma based on faith and revelation alone, which both are not a sufficient basis of knowledge. However, as long as G-d’s specific elements of reality are not defined, G-d remains a non-existent product of the human fantasy." I think this is the crux.

I don't expect a reply to this post.

Of course this is the crux😵