Catholic Crusader: Why do you quote Aquinas's proofs when they've been shown to be invalid?

Question

Simple enough question... it's not like their invalidity hasn't been pointed out, on multiple occasions.

jesussaves:

This is a beautiful moment.

A near-rabid atheist and a fundie christian in complete agreement.

Break out the champaign (or grape juice depending on your particular views of alcohol).

Aquinas has five proofs:

1.) First Mover. He assumes that YHVH is the only possible first Mover. This is a special pleading logical error. He does not prove that another deity did not do it.

2.) First Cause: Because he was not familiar with quantum physics, he could not conceive of co-causal events -- A causes B, and B causes A. Further, he rules out infinite regression by special pleading.

3.) Necessary Existence: Special pleading YET again -- ignores that it's possible that non-existence is an option. Also, ignores other possible necessary existences.

4.) Degrees of existence: Unprovable chain. Special pleading that what is conceived must exist.

5.) Order: A variation on the anthropic principle, known to be erroneous.


Not one of them stands.

CC:

If his premise was that God exists, then any proof he generated is invalid.

He started with what he intended to show.

That is itself logically invalid.

You're not helping his case.

jesussaves:

There's an old saying "I'm here but my mind is elsewhere."

Take one look at his answer and you'll see that he's not really here.

gary7:

No kidding. I had to read the entire Summa Theologica as part of my one-on-one Confirmation classes with a priest who was trying to help my preparations for the priesthood.

Prirate AM:

Hope for the best out of people.

Expect the worst.

Answer 1

I think he's hoping to convince the people who haven't seen the arguments against Aquinas. It seems like an underhanded tactic to me, but that's just my opinion.

EDIT:
Hope: They were shown to be invalid by David Hume a few centuries ago. Here is a shortened version of some of the problems with each proof.

1. It relies on a notion of physics that assumes that "rest" is the natural state of objects. This is false, and without it the argument is useless.

2. This simply defines the initial cause as "God." There is no reason to suppose that the God of the Bible is at all like the initial cause that has just been demonstrated to exist.

3. This basically involves a denial of the first law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy cannot be created, and therefore do not require a creator.

4. This redefines God as "maximum goodness" and therefore suffers from the same problem as 2. It also assumes an ontological commitment to Plato's forms. Russel and Quine have shown that such a commitment is unnecessary.

5. This assumes that all things can be teleologically explained. That conflicts with the probabilistic nature of quantum physics.

EDIT 2:
I'm going off of a slightly different list than J.P. so my arguments for 3 and 5 probably don't make a whole lot of sense.

Hope: No problem. There are responses to Hume's arguments. I think some of them hold up, but I do believe that Aquinas's proofs are ultimately invalid (after studying the literature on both sides.)

Crusader: Are you sure you don't mean his conclusion is that God exists? If he started with the premise that God exists his proofs would be circular and therefore not of any argumentative value.

Answer 2

Aquinas based faith on reason, a move that led to the skepticism of Hume, who disproved Aquinas's theistic arguments and thus left faith without a basis.

Answer 3

aquinas proofs were accepted as valid by almost all european christians (including early protestants) until well into the seventeenth century.

if something was doctrinally true in 1550 then either it is still true, or else the doctrine was wrong.

doctrine can never be wrong (god is immutable) so clearly aquinas' proofs are still true, no matter how wrong they are.

....

believing nonsense is like eating noodles: once you start, you can't stop.

Answer 4

Catholic Crusader used to use the improbability of life as demonstrated by Hoyle. I sent him a message telling him why those calculations were misleading and told him about Hoyle's fallacy, and I haven't seen Crusader use that argument since then.

I don't know if the two events correlated, but if so, I credit him for it.

Answer 5

I like how some of the fundies join in the pile-on because he's Catholic, even though the premises on which they base their position are equally if not more absurd.

The reason he quotes Aquinas' proofs? Maybe he still thinks it's the 13th century.

Answer 6

They prove that a belief in God was intellectually valid during the time that Aquinas wrote them. But they've been used as 'proofs' in a way they were never intended to be used.

Answer 7

I'm not convinced that that was the real CC, it might have been but I'm holding out for some proof...

Answer 8

Who's shown them to be invalid? How many have equally posed them to be valid as a counterstance?

Just curious as I haven't studied his works and do not pretend that I have enought to refute it

*Vishal* Thanks, oh this is the "5 Ways" I've heard about and these are the objections, I'm certain there are just as many counterarguments to Humes worthy of study.......I'll delve into it

Answer 9

We salute you for standing up for The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Answer 10

Apparently he didn't get the memo, even though it's a couple hundred years old -- Christians aren't too keen on acknowledging dissenting opinions...