Reasoning faith

[Thomas]

Uh... I wasn't MAKING an argument. Aquinas was, relying on a premise ("infinite series are impossible") for which he offers no justification at all.

Actually he does elsewhere, but within that he does allow for the idea of an 'infinite series' (which is not an 'infinite thing') — 'shape' is finite, but one can conceive an infinite number of 'shapes' — he distinguishes between a relative and an absolute infinite.
Question 7 of the Summa covers this.

We are talking about the material world. He would argue there is an infinite: God.

The assumption by Aquinas that natural phenomena look forward to what the end will be turns out not to be the way things work; it is just a presumption that we take to make about things, based on a not-always-realistic projection of the way that we work.

I disagree. The end in view is in the cause of the operation itself — whether that operation is successful is another matter.

Lightning is caused, and it is a thing determined by its cause, which determines its end — the lightning therefore contains within itself it's perfection, which is the attainment of that end. All lightning tends towards the same thing — the discharge of its energy. How it succeeds in so doing is a contingent matter.

No, I said no such thing. All I said was that a well-tutored mind would recognize that Aquinas has not made any valid arguments.

Again, I disagree — but we would have to agree by what you mean "well tutored". Whether a "well-tutored mind" is aware of the argument is another matter. As "well-tutored" is conditional, I would argue that means someone who is tutored in the Corpus of Thomist philosophy — in which case such a mind would know of the argument against an infinite other than God, and as far as I know, that argument has not been disproved.

Thomas

 

[cyberpi]

In math the way to achieve infinity is to divide a thing into ever smaller pieces. Anything divided into parts of nothing (zero), results in an infinite number of pieces. In every infinite series with a finite value, the pieces must get ever smaller... infinitely smaller. What is infinitely small? Nothing. Don't start the task big... start with one electron... or one photon. How many pieces can you divide it into? In every degree of freedom available, science has verified locally that what the mathemagician can claim on paper, physically does not exist.

I submit that God is not infinite... God is not composed of an infinite amounts of nothing. Rather God, and the soul, appears into this world from the other side of what appears as potentially infinite.

 

[Tao_Equus]

There is a soul and there is flesh. Faith is in a soul which can see and can evoke change. Anything else is merely a blind hope... a blind faith. You can place trust in the computer, a machine, or the flesh, but it is nothing but hope. The computer, the machine, or the flesh will NOT trust you back. It will only obey if you make it obey. If or when you fully see the inside of the computer, machine, or flesh... is the hope or trust in it dead? There will be a day when the computer, machine, and flesh will fail.

Leaps of faith? The only leap of faith is when a soul asks you to leap and you choose to obey. Or you ask another soul to leap for you, and believe they will. Anything else is flesh training and blind hope.

Does a computer, machine, or flesh reason? Does a computer, machine, or flesh place faith in you? No, so why try to place faith or trust in it? The soul can evoke reasoning and the soul can evoke and make faith. Give the pearls to a soul. Any trust in the deterministic computer, machine, or flesh is blind faith... it is gambling. Blind, lonely, gambling. If the computer tells you to leap, will you leap? If the machine says jump will you obey it?

Hi Chris !

That was the most eloquent and inspirational piece I have ever read on CR. Well done

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Thomas

These 5 proofs are frankly nonsense and I think only a theologian would have the guile or 'innocence' to use them. They are all naive and despite your undoubtedly best of intentions start from the premise of confirming what you already believe.




1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible. (No evidence posited nor possible to posit.)
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible. (No evidence posited or possible to posit.)
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings. (In an infinite universe all things exist according to probability.)
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu). Perfection does not exist except as a concept.
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends. No they do not
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

These certainly do not prove the Christian God, nor do they prove God, but they are sound arguments, based on empirical data.

Thomas

Sorry Thomas but they simply have no empirical merit at all.

Tao

 

[Saltmeister]

Hi Chris !

That was the most eloquent and inspirational piece I have ever read on CR. Well done

Cyberpi? Your name is Chris? . . . or has Tao simply confused you with China Cat Sunflower?

 

[cyberpi]

* An infinite regress of movers is impossible. (No evidence posited nor possible to posit.)
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible. (No evidence posited or possible to posit.)

Rather that ALL empirically measured evidence shows both of these true... namely, thermodynamics. Not to say the rules or the scientific constants can not be altered by God, but then... Q.E.D.

The argument you pose Tao is essentially that gravity is not proven because it has not been empirically measured everywhere. No evidence to suggest that it is impossible that you might have a secret closet wherein there is no gravity. You've not only nullified those two statements with your reasoning... you've nullified every bit of empirical science.

Perfection does not exist except as a concept.

Who makes the concept? Is perfection not found when reality is molded by the concept?

* All natural bodies in the world act for ends. No they do not

Empirically measured thermodynamics shows that they do. Is empirically measured thermodynamics wrong?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

When we trust something we sometimes refer to it as "authoritative". Trust establishes authority. We vest authority, in people, institutions, and ideas that we trust. They should speak for us, intellectualize for us, conclude for us, discover for us, keep the peace for us, lead us, and do all the other things we don't have the time or inclination to do, or that just simply can't be done by one person or generation. So, now, if we equate this trust I'm talking about with faith, the question of whether reason and faith are mutually exclusive becomes silly. Faith is an integral component of reason.

I'm sorry Chris, but nothing in your argument leads me to think this is true

I'm basically saying that the practical function of reason is problem solving from incomplete data sets. Since none of us have the time to do all the research to understand something complex like archeology, or global economics (pick something that interests you but is forever beyond your field of expertise) we have to rely on sources of information and especially sources of informed opinion. How do we make a reasonable choice of which sources are credible? How do we decide what to trust? That's what we're investing isn't it, our trust, or faith (arguably of course)? Reason is all about being canny on what to trust.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

Cyberpi? Your name is Chris? . . . or has Tao simply confused you with China Cat Sunflower?

I imagine Tao did not quote the post he intended. I agree with C.C.S., but a little differently on what is canny.

 

[Paladin]

Oh okay Chris, I see what you are saying. Am I correct in thinking that your definition of reason is a choice or action based on available data chosen through intuition?

 

[bob x]

Actually he does elsewhere, but within that he does allow for the idea of an 'infinite series' (which is not an 'infinite thing') — 'shape' is finite, but one can conceive an infinite number of 'shapes' — he distinguishes between a relative and an absolute infinite.
Question 7 of the Summa covers this.
We are talking about the material world. He would argue there is an infinite: God.

He has not excluded the possibility that the material world includes an infinite number of things. He says that each individual thing is finite; and that we only see a finite number of things: wood potentially could take on an infinite number of shapes, he says, but actually only takes on a finite number of them; does he know that, or just assume it? Even at the present moment, there might be an unlimited number of worlds containing wooden objects, for all we know; our limited observation does not prove any limit on what actually is out there; and has there been an infinite amount of time? We don't know, nor does the finiteness of our observation prove anything on that score (else we could argue that the universe cannot be as much as 200 years old!)

I disagree. The end in view is in the cause of the operation itself

That is not what is meant by "end" (also rendered "purpose"). Aquinas believes that natural phenomena do not simply respond to the instantaneous conditions, but look ahead to the future outcomes ("earthy" bodies fall, and "fiery" bodies rise, according to the Aristotelian concept, because this would eventually lead to the earthy bodies ending up joined to the rest of the earth and the fiery bodies joined to the outer fire). This turns out not to be the case.

Again, I disagree — but we would have to agree by what you mean "well tutored".

I meant, someone who understands how the universe actually works, insofar as we have by now discovered it. Of course, in the future we are likely to discover that much of our present understanding is incomplete or garbled, but already we know enough to see how garbled the medieval understanding was. Aquinas was certainly not "unintelligent": obviously he had a great deal of native smarts; but he was ignorant, which was not his fault: everybody was very ignorant back then.

* All natural bodies in the world act for ends. No they do not
Empirically measured thermodynamics shows that they do

What in the world are you even trying to say there??? Thermodynamics most decidedly does NOT show that natural bodies have a sense of "purpose".

 

[cyberpi]

What in the world are you even trying to say there??? Thermodynamics most decidedly does NOT show that natural bodies have a sense of "purpose".

The natural bodies flow in one direction, and one direction only. Everything must use energy and produce entropy. Everything is thus recorded. Due to the design, evident in empirically measured thermodynamics, for everything physical there is necessarily a beginning and there is necessarily an end. I submit the purpose is to record everything.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Oh okay Chris, I see what you are saying. Am I correct in thinking that your definition of reason is a choice or action based on available data chosen through intuition?

Well, we'd have to define intuition. Many things feel like intuition even though there may be a significant amount of coercion involved.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi? Your name is Chris? . . . or has Tao simply confused you with China Cat Sunflower?

I meant Chris...CCS, I must have clicked quote on the wrong box when replying.

Sorry

 

[Tao_Equus]

Rather that ALL empirically measured evidence shows both of these true... namely, thermodynamics. Not to say the rules or the scientific constants can not be altered by God, but then... Q.E.D.

Thermodynamics again....come on dude change the bleedin record.

The argument you pose Tao is essentially that gravity is not proven because it has not been empirically measured everywhere.

Correct. Is that not true?

Who makes the concept? Is perfection not found when reality is molded by the concept?

No it never exists. Except as an illusion for those who like to be poetic or vainly self-sure.

Empirically measured thermodynamics shows that they do. Is empirically measured thermodynamics wrong?

We have been through all this on other threads. You throw up thermodynamics and entropy and ignore everything I say so I really do not see the point of going there again. If you think either of your pet words is fully consistent with all science I cannot help you.

 

[cyberpi]

Thermodynamics again....come on dude change the bleedin record.

I can't ignore it... I make use of it. I am an engineer. It is involved in all aspects of engineering. Everything requires energy, including every measurement. If you know of another way then I submit that engineering schools all across the world and scientists would like to hear of it.

Correct. Is that not true?

As long as you see that you are then opposed to calling anything a proof or a scientific law, and that everything empirical including all of measured science favors those two statements. I agree with you that faith or blind hope is involved in all things simply for the fact that people do not and can not test everything and see everything at every time and at every place. However, for example Newton's measurement of laws have withstood many tests. Every day that I have woken up I have felt gravity. The laws measured by science have been upheld when they have been tested, or new theories are developed to account for differing observations. Nothing I have learned in college or tested on my own has defeated either one of those two statements. But I am quite certain that it is possible... by God.

No it never exists. Except as an illusion for those who like to be poetic or vainly self-sure.

As an engineer I strive to design to perfection, which involves determining what a person wants or needs. They tell me the degree of perfection in the results and I compare it with my own measure.

We have been through all this on other threads. You throw up thermodynamics and entropy and ignore everything I say so I really do not see the point of going there again. If you think either of your pet words is fully consistent with all science I cannot help you.

I did not ignore your words, "No they do not", but I am happy to if you wish. If there is ANY natural body in the world that does not act for ends, then I'd surely like to hear of it. Hopefully you have empirical evidence posited or possible to posit? I seek your evidence for your statement, "No they do not". Please provide.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I meant Chris...CCS, I must have clicked quote on the wrong box when replying.

Sorry

Thank you Tao, that was as fine a compliment as I've ever received! I thought maybe it was directed to Cyberpi because I didn't see what I wrote as inspirational. But heck yeah, I'll take the brownie- and thanks!

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
* Some things are moved.
* Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
* An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
* Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
* This mover is what we call God.

We have observed that there is a stack of turtles which no one has ever seen the top or bottom of. Since there cannot be an infinite stack of turtles there must be a first turtle. This turtle we call God.

2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
* Some things are caused.
* Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
* An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
* Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
* This causer is what we call God.

The turtles cannot themselves move. Because of the way they're stacked the hump in the shell underneath makes it impossible for the turtles toes to touch anything. We have noticed that the turtles do move, so the movement must come from the first turtle. That's why we call him God.

3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
* Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
* It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as something can't come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
* Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
* This being is what we call God.

Since all of the turtles are on the stack, the oldest turtle must have stacked the younger ones on top of themselves. Therefore, the first turtle must be self born because no other turtle is older than him. Another reason we call him God.

4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
* Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
* These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
* The pinnacle of perfection, from which lesser degrees of perfection derive, is what we call God.

I don't know how to make the turtle analogy work for this one. How is it that varying degrees of perfection have been observed? What perfection? What degrees? Based on what?

5. The argument of "design" (ex fine).
* All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
* These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
* To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
* Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
* This being we call God.

All the turtles seem to have a purpose, and that is...getting stacked. Since, as anyone knows, getting stacked is an unintelligent thing to do, but stacking is an intelligent activity, it can only be assumed that the first turtle himself came up with the idea of starting this stack and then forced the younger turtles to do his will.

Chris

 

[bob x]

I don't know how to make the turtle analogy work for this one

I'm Yertle the Turtle, oh marvellous me, for I am the Ruler of all I can see!

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I'm Yertle the Turtle, oh marvellous me, for I am the Ruler of all I can see!

Sweet! The Tao of Seuss.

Chris

 

[Paladin]

You guys crack me up, and after the week Ive had I need that !