Sorry for my sloppy english, I'm a spanish native speaker :D

You probably laugh at me because of this, but I happen to be studying in a catholic university. Sadly, it is the best university of my country (and the 2nd in latinamerica).As far as I knew, no career-except from Theology of course-had anything to do with god or jesus or all that stuff. That is true in most careers (I was in sociology and we red Nietzsche), but not in Laws, which I'm studying now. They like ius naturalism (natural law), and though Descartes, Kant and other philosophers "invented" rational ius naturalism, in my faculty they teach us the "theological", as stupid as it sounds. Don't worry, all the other classes are cientifical and secular. Natural Law is the big problem.
In this context is that I had to read and memorize (puke) the 5 ways to prove the existence of God by Saint Thomas Aquines:

1.It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement (then god is the static motor)

2.We discern in all sensible things a certain chain of efficient causes. We find, however, nothing which is its own efficient cause, for that cause would then be anterior to itself. On the other side, it is impossible to ascend from cause to cause indefinitely in the series of efficient causes. There must therefore exist one self-sufficient , efficient cause, and that is God

3.We find in nature things which may be and may not be, since there are some who are born and others who die; they consequently can exist or not exist. But it is impossible that such things should live for ever, for there is nothing which may be as well as not be at one time. Thus if all beings need not have existed, there must have been a time in which nothing existed. But, in that case, nothing would exist now; for that which does not exist can not receive life but from one who exists. There must therefore be in nature a necessarily existent being

4.Any category has its degrees, such as good and better, warm and warmer. Each also has one thing that's the ultimate of that measure, like good and "best", warm and "hottest". And whatever is the most of that category is the source of that category, as fire (or, in modern terms, energy itself) is the source of heat, and God must therefore be the source of goodness.

5.Everything, sentient or otherwise, progresses in an orderly way. Planets move in their orbits, light breaks from and combines into its spectrum, et cetera. Reality has a natural order, which could not have come from nothing, yet which precedes mere humans (which is God)


They "seem" logical, though I know that they are full of holes, but I don't have the philosophical/logical knowledge to refute them entirely. Can someone please do so? or link me a page where is done? I really want to post the refuted ways somewhere in the faculty!

Views: 3

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

1 - 2. Basically, he draws the conclusion that since he doesn't like the idea of something being infinite, there must be something which started and the only logical explanation seems in his eyes to be god. However, what claim is there that the universe for example, doesn't go in cycles? We can find this notion in other parts of our world, like the seasons. They all go in cycles. When winter ends, it is not a definite end because it will return. I am also of the belief that the universe merely recycles itself. For the fully explored refute of 2, go to 5.

3. I don't even understand what 3 is about. It's a lot of babbling about existence but I don't get the point at all! "But it is impossible that such things should live for ever" what does this mean in the context of what he expressed in the previous statement?!

4 is very easy to refute! You can basically say that these categories are merely a part of the language we speak (there are languages where there is no grading scales at all) and therefore the argument doesn't hold, since his logic is based upon the language we use and he is taking for granted that our view of grading is universal. Once again, isn't true, and since it isn't true and is a cultural thing, there doesn't need to be a god. I would assume that the refute to my argument would be that "they are heathens that don't understand the divine in the right way", but that also stems from the very notion of us wanting to be more right. What is right? Right is a very subjective notion, I can argue that my pagan beliefs are more right than a Christian one, therefore once again, the view of what is right and correct cannot be universal because humans can never on this notion come to a general agreement more than we agree to disagree.

5. So god is not included in our natural laws? What proof is there god is not (more than Aquinas wanting god not to)? If using the logic of determinism, then god didn't create earth and life without a reason, there was a cause (this guy seems horny on determinism but doesn't understand it fully...) and thus god is also a part of natural law!
I knew the answer to 4, is the stupidest one :P

Thanks a lot :D I loved the 1-2 answer.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service