The five ways in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is an elegant and complete logical proof of God's existence so how is it possible that the...

The five ways in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is an elegant and complete logical proof of God's existence so how is it possible that there are still doubters? Are they just ignorant on purpose?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >proof of God's existence
    Wrong, the demonstrations are proofs of first causes, unmoved sources of motion, necessity, etc., but note that they all end with "and we call this God." What isn't argued here is whether any of these five ways are 1) applicable to the Biblical God, and 2) whether, if one affirms that, say, an unmoved mover is "God", whether all other Biblical attributes or any such thing follow.

    What's more, *Aquinas knew these weren't sufficient for belief in the Biblical God*, hence there's a substantial but separate set of arguments in the Summa trying to establish that.

    An example of why the Five Ways don't take you all the way: you can argue your way to, say, the big bang, and follow with, "and this I call God." Cool, but that doesn't tell someone anything else than that you associate the word "God" with origins in general, and doesn't tell me whether what you call a God has a providential interest in mankind, whether there's a requirement in how I should live, whether how I live will be rewarded or punished, etc.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but note that they all end with "and we call this God."
      This is called a definition, anon. Maybe language is just intersubjective, y'know?
      >What isn't argued here is whether any of these five ways are 1) applicable to the Biblical God, and 2) whether, if one affirms that, say, an unmoved mover is "God", whether all other Biblical attributes or any such thing follow.
      True, but you say that as if thomists don't explicitly claim that natural theology cannot prove the biblical god.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is called a definition, anon. Maybe language is just intersubjective, y'know?
        The *definition* isn't demonstrated, just asserted at the end. What's *demonstrated* are whether there's a first cause, an unmoved mover, etc., but, strictly, this would be akin to demonstrating *anything whatsoever* and following it with, "and this we call God." I.e., there's five demonstrations, but only of the five topics, but with respect to whether they prove the existence of the Biblical God, they're only dialectical arguments by Aristotle's meaning, i.e., probable based on opinions, but not certain.

        >True, but you say that as if thomists don't explicitly claim that natural theology cannot prove the biblical god.
        I was already aware of that, hence why I said that Aquinas knew it wasn't sufficient.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The *definition* isn't demonstrated, just asserted at the end.
          That's how definitions work though. How the hell would someone demonstrate a definition?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That's how definitions work though. How the hell would someone demonstrate a definition?
            That's how *some* definitions work; cf. Aristotle's treatment of definitins in the Posterior Analytics. Some definitions may in indemonstrable, which is the worst case scenario for knowing a thing; in the best cases, it's a product of demonstrative proofs. In most cases, you have to start from opinions about this or that definition and test them and see what stands up to scrutiny.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >may in indemonstrable
            *"may be indemonstrable"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      first post already destroying thomists

      https://i.imgur.com/fFGJUIs.png

      The five ways in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica is an elegant and complete logical proof of God's existence so how is it possible that there are still doubters? Are they just ignorant on purpose?

      one thing I don't understand with religious freaks is that even if we assume these "5 proofs" prove god, where the frick does the israelites, rabbi yeshua, circumcision, homophobia, sea shells and funny hats come from? they can only prove deism at best and nothing more, everything else can be discarded

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't get it, you're angry because a theist argument is not also a lesson on the history of christianity? This doesn't make sense to me.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >theist argument
          oxymoron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Provide five (5) proofs of something
        >"But those aren't proofs of something else!"
        Thomas Kirk wept

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >homophobia
        go back troony

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >transphobia
          /misc/ is thataway man

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, how is the Primary Mover (pure actuality) not God? Don't we characterise God as omnipotent, omniscient, non-physical, perfect, eternal, immutable and only one? And isn't the Primary Mover omnipotent because it's purely actual as not being able to do something is to have an unrealised potential? And as the grounding for all true propositions it would not just have knowledge but be knowledge itself, and to lack knowledge is to have an unrealised potential, thus also being omniscient? And isn't it non-physical because physical substances can change location, form, etc., all of which are unrealised potentials? And isn't it perfect, because flaws and imperfections are potentialities? And isn't it eternal since something purely actual cannot come into or go out of being? And isn't it immutable since changeability involves unrealised potentials? And isn't it only one since the only way to tell the difference between two purely actual things is if one of them had something that the other lacked, and something of pure actuality does not lack anything? There's a part of you that's aware of the miserable case of cognitive dissonance you're demonstrating, but the rest of you is so absorbed in pretending to be confident in this matter that you'd rather go down the easier, dismissive route and perform your programmed command line -- 'now prove it's your god!!'. Give it a think. You never know, perhaps your IQ might improve towards double-digit status.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >everything has a cause
    >NO NOT THAT EVERYTHING ELSE

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Some people saw actual miracles in front of their eyes and didn't convert.

    Even in the Bible, some people saw Jesus resurrecting a dude. They wanted to kill the dude who was resurrected to not increase Jesus' popularity.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is direct evidence of the miracle of Fatima, hundreds of people saw it. If you don't believe after countless stuff like that then you deserve damnation in my humble opinion

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        We can't judge others, anon... But that said, the miracle of Fatima was what I had in mind

        >The rain, at the pre-announced hour, ceases to fall; the dense mass of clouds break up and the king star — a frosted silver disc — at the height of its zenith appears and begins dancing in a violent and convulsive ballet, which a large number of people imagined to be a serpentine dance, so beautiful and brilliant colors successively covered the solar surface.

        >Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, the wise would say? I don't want to know now, but just want to tell you what I saw...

        >The rest is up to Science and the Church...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is direct evidence of the miracle of Fatima, hundreds of people saw it. If you don't believe after countless stuff like that then you deserve damnation in my humble opinion

      I mean, that’s the whole point of the the ending to the story of the rich man and Lazarus, isn’t it?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Incorrect. The first, second, and third ways claim infinite regress can't exist without proving this (and the second way implies that God doesn't have free will, by the way). The last two are such obvious bullshit I don't care to point it out.

    If you have faith, just have faith. Why do you have to commit crimes against logic just to justify what you would've believed anyway?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The first, second, and third ways claim infinite regress can't exist without proving this
      Premises are le bad now

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        sorry Black person, but I'm not going to accept your claim if you don't prove it. Why can't an infinite regress exist?

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whether God exists or not is such a boring question nobody actually cares about. The real question is why anybody should care whether God exists or not

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The real question is why anybody should care whether God exists or not

      Is that a picture of your brain you posted?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    five ways? there's only one way, through mohammad his prophet, pbuh, pbuh

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Have you considered the possibility that the arguments just might not be as good as you think they are?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You should consider it some more.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you think that the people who disagree with you on some controversial philosophical question are just being willfully ignorant, you've clearly gone wrong somewhere. It's much more likely that you're just missing something compared to the hypothesis that the legions of smart philosophers who disagree with you are all being intellectually dishonest.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ad populum

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ad Latinum.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not an argument

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God does physics so you should worship Jesus
    It's a slam dunk if you're already a Christian.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1-3. What moved/caused/was-necessary for God to exist? If God doesn't need something else why does the universe?
    4. What is the largest number? There existing a measure of degree doesn't imply a largest element.
    5. Argument from design. Teleology doesn't exist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Teleology doesn't exist
      Teleology does exist, the issue is scale. A mouth is for the sake of taking in nutrition and material, which no one contests, the problem is deciding whether the animal with that mouth exists as it is for the sake of something, which is where arguments sprout.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Teleology does exist, the issue is scale. A mouth is for the sake of taking in nutrition and material, which no one contests
        Teleology doesn't exist. It is impossible to determine what the purpose of something is since purpose is totally subjective. Even your attempted proof relies on the popularity of a certain subjective opinion. At best you can refer to the evolutionary history of some biological feature and evolution frequently changes the "purpose" of something.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What do you use your mouth for besides sucking dick?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Aristotle's Physics is a joke. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings. The planets do not orbit the earth because that is their purpose to do so. Rocks do not all to the ground because that is where they belong teleologicaly.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The planets do not orbit the earth because that is their purpose to do so. Rocks do not all to the ground because that is where they belong teleologicaly.
            That's what modern physics says though. Movement is relative, so it's as correct to say that the earth is the center of the solar system as it isn't. Gravity makes planets orbit and rocks fall, so Aristotle is right again. The real problem with his physics is its lack of a predictive framework, but the descriptions are on point with modern science.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Teleology doesn't exist. It is impossible to determine what the purpose of something is since purpose is totally subjective. Even your attempted proof relies on the popularity of a certain subjective opinion. At best you can refer to the evolutionary history of some biological feature and evolution frequently changes the "purpose" of something.
          Wrong, and trivially so. What you contest is exactly what I highlighted, whether an animal exists for the sake of something, but tools and structures trivially exist for the sake of whatever purpose we bring them about for. Another example: you're arguing about it with me for the sake of persuading me (or for the sake of (You)s, or for the sake of victory, or for the sake of, etc.), otherwise you'd be arbitrarily chattering, right? You disagree about scale, but not that there's purposiveness whatsoever, and even the subjectivity of purposiveness isn't a denial of purposiveness, just a disagreement over which purposes or how many there might be, since a subjective purpose is still a purpose.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but tools and structures trivially exist for the sake of whatever purpose we bring them about for.
            Your identification of tools and structures is subjective. There is no "purpose" for a mouth. All biology says anything about is the evolutionary history of that feature.
            >Another example: you're arguing about it with me for the sake of persuading me (or for the sake of (You)s, or for the sake of victory, or for the sake of, etc.), otherwise you'd be arbitrarily chattering, right?
            So you're starting to understand. The purpose of my speech is subjective to me. You can't objectively state what somethings purpose is because there is no objective purpose.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So you're starting to understand. The purpose of my speech is subjective to me. You can't objectively state what somethings purpose is because there is no objective purpose.
            This is literally what I said, and your insistence on purposes being subjective still presupposes "there are purposes." You’re playing word games at this point; if you accept that there are needs, desires, wants, then you accept that there purposes, *and disagree on scale*.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is literally what I said, and your insistence on purposes being subjective still presupposes "there are purposes."
            I've never said there no purposes. There are as many different purposes as there are subjective viewpoints. What doesn't exist is teleology aka objective purpose.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      God was there at the beginning, no one can understand but Him

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They are so condensed that they lose much of their force. If Aquinas wasn't so committed to his formatting, he could have made them much more convincing. He also assumes a thorough knowledge of Aristotle (which makes one wonder who the "theological novices" he wrote the Summa for were!), which just isn't common today. The first and third ways are very much worth thinking about, though.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *