Has anyone refuted Aquinas 5 ways?

[Anonymous No.14183162]

Have Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever been refuted properly by the fedoras?
The only arguments i've ever seen against them have been:

>How do you know your God is the right god
(Shifting the Goalposts and ultimately a useless argument against Perennialists)

>It's just a pseudo Intellectual word salad
(also not an argument, atleasy say what specifically is wrong with Aquinas arguments)
So ITT: Since God's existence has been Proved Metaphysically/Philosophically, Fedoras now need to disprove God, and refute Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways, a Summary of them is in the thread

[Anonymous No.14183163]

A summary of the 5 ways are:

1. In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

2. In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.

3. In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.

4. We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals. Moreover, some substances are better than others, since living things are better than non-living things, and animals are better than plants, in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged. For example in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus. From this he deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.

5. We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

[Anonymous No.14183167]

I'm not OP but I hope it's OK if I repost this from a thread I made earlier that quickly 404'ed. Hopefully OP doesn't mind me piggybacking.

What is a concept or essence, for Thomas Aquinas?

In his proofs of God's existence at the beginning of the Summa Theologica, he says we can't have a priori logical knowledge of God, because we don't have full cognition of the essence of God. Compare that to Anselm, who happily predicates about God logically and a priori. To me Aquinas seems to be implying a distinction between:
>real essences of things, which are "logical"
and
>logical concepts of things, as substances with certain qualities and so forth

But notice how both the essence and the concept of the essence have logical form, they both participate in being logical, despite being different. So what is the difference? Is it a matter of actual qualitative difference, or is it just a difference of quantity or gradation? What is the difference for Aquinas between a substance/term that is perfectly able to be cognized and reasoned about analytically, and one that isn't, like God?

My first instinct was that we know things indirectly and imperfectly, and God knows things directly: we have concepts of beings, but for God just knowing something also makes it "be." But that doesn't fit, because Aquinas doesn't have any problem with apodictic analytic propositions about real things that presumably have real essences (say, a dog), just so long as they're not God. It's not that "we just don't know essences." It's that we don't know God's essence.

So HOW is it that God's essence is uniquely unknowable with respect to analytically predicating about it, if we have no problem knowing other essences and analytically predicating about them? Wouldn't the problem be easier to solve with a nominalist position, that is, by just saying that logic and concepts don't necessarily refer to any real universals? Aquinas seems to be saying logic DOES do so, in a non-nominalist sense, but then saying it only "sorta" does so for God. How does this work in an Aristotelian system? Aristotle himself had no issues predicating about God.

[Anonymous No.14183174]

I'm Christian, and I don't really care about proofs for God, but if you want to find critiques of the five ways I can recommend a few philosophers; Hume, Kant, Kenny, and Sobel have all criticized Thomas' five ways.

[Anonymous No.14183177]

>>14183174
Oh shit, I also forgot Mackie.

[Anonymous No.14183184]

>>14183163
what allows Aquinas to dismiss the concept of infinite regress or an infinitely long chain so easily?

[Anonymous No.14183189]

>>14183184
Not Possible for the chain to be infinitely long, unless you believe that the Universe is eternal and had no beginning

[Anonymous No.14183197]

>>14183163
TL;DR: The universe, not god.

[Anonymous No.14183198]

>>14183189
Wouldn’t that belief undermine those proofs then? It’s not an obviously nonsensical proposition

[Anonymous No.14183218]

Logical deduction is not a solid substitute for concrete evidence, certainly not enough to classify as a preponderance of evidence which renders the existence of god as a truth which must be refuted rather than a theory which must refute. Provide pure, tangible data which verifies the existence of what we'd consider God and you may actually win people over.
Unless "God" is referring to a malleable concept which could represent any entity or event which instigated existence, the assertion that the instigator of reality is the thing which we call God is willfully ignorant of the theoretically infinite amount of plausible causes for existence that human psychology and technology is not yet able to fathom.

[Anonymous No.14183221]

>>14183162
>>How do you know your God is the right god
Easy; human nature, intuition or divine inspiration. They all work together.

[Anonymous No.14183239]

>>14183174
>>14183177
But thred is not exactly about Aquinas's 5 ways, rather it's about Feser's book, which explicates and defends five arguments from Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustin, Aquinas, and Liebniz.

[Anonymous No.14183240]

>>14183163
>1. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else
see: Quantum mechanics

>2. There must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.
Non Sequitur

>3. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being
or the Universe

>4. We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc
fallible human conceptions based on emotion not reason

>5. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior
See: Evolution (I know its hard to accept but even Christian leaders have accepted it by now)

[Anonymous No.14183250]

>>14183240
Tbh, Evolution still doesn't answer how Humans managed to get so far ahead of other animals in such a short amount of time. But there is another answer to that..

[Anonymous No.14183257]

>>14183250
>Evolution still doesn't answer how Humans managed to get so far ahead of other animals in such a short amount of time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence

[Anonymous No.14183264]

>>14183240
Explain how you refute that with quantum mechanics though because if anything quantum mechanics alone just lends more credence to (1)

[Anonymous No.14183274]

Why do you think no one in the history of philosophy ever talks about Aquinas after the 1700's? Its because Kant absolutely blew the fuck out of Aquinas his entire mode of thinking in the Critique of Pure Reason.

I know you're underaged because you think only fedoras have critiques(and usually theists give such a terrible formulation of the cosmological argument that fedora critiques work) of it but thats because all serious philosophers have read Kant and even if they disagree with some stuff pretty much agree with Kant on his criticism of Aquinas. You can read the wikipedia entry or the stanford entry on The Critique and it'll show you what Kants objection was.

[Anonymous No.14183299]

>>14183163
a. The prime mover, the uncaused cause, the imperishable being, does not have to be God nor be sentient nor have any particularly godlike properties. Aquinas attempts to prove otherwise but doesn't.

b. The idea of prime mover assumes both purely linear time and no infinite regress, which there is no definite reason to assume.

c. The fourth assumes religious value judgements, doesn't really need explaining but it's fine if you accept those principles.

d. The fifth fails to prove why non-intelligent patterns must be caused by intelligence (probably why he get's accused of "God in the gaps").

[Anonymous No.14183311]

>>14183250
It's interesting but it has nothing to do with the five ways.

[Anonymous No.14183326]

>>14183162
the proof that god does not exist is that cute women it the wall

[Anonymous No.14183344]

>>14183264
subatomic phenomena is spontaneous and probabilistic. I'm guessing you're thinking that observer effect/collapse proves (1) which it doesn't since the 'chain' change only would only extend as far as observation/measurement is possible (certainly not too long ago).

[Anonymous No.14183355]

>>14183326
still would

[Anonymous No.14183377]

>>14183344
explain better what you mean by ''spontaneous'' and ''probabilistic''. and why does the chain extend only until the limit of observartion/measurement? is it because the reality of quanta is grounded on measurement and what is not measured (or can't be measured) is reject for not fitting in quantification?

[Anonymous No.14183382]

>>14183189
But there's also the concept of nonlinear time. Only because humans experience time linearly does not mean it has to be that way, similarly to how we only experience 3 dimensions, when there's more. Something like time being a loop has been proposed (although w/ basically 0 evidence), and if hypothetically we accepted this as true, it would change our understanding of time even more fundamentally then the non geocentric model did.

[Anonymous No.14183396]

In Cause Zero, there was truly nothing before, and if there was a claim of otherwise, then it is truly not Cause Zero. It fits as a reason for the argument of God or to the one in questioning, the answer to his Ietism, we all agree on one belief that there must be a something. With God in a way of being Cause Zero, is the argument of nothing before and the reason for the creation of all things existing. A force of creation being the driver for progression in the universe. There was always something, and there was never truly nothing. Before me, I was nothing. But before Cause Zero? There was never such a thing. This fits the argument of God, in stating that no science, or theoretical findings may ever truly explain the reason for us being, besides a creator Cause Zero. To argue against having a rational standing in believing God, is one full of holes.
“Our existence is one of coincidence”
If that is so, then why does science state that everything has a reason? Why must you mark things off as phenomenon? That in itself is stating that there was no reason as to what is the cause.
“Well, who created God?
That is the main question that Cause Zero truly refutes. That there was nothing before or after and if there was then it was never the first cause.
The answer of Cause Zero is not to dispel any search of answers science brings. But is to dispel the idea that we will ever truly know anything that stands as a noumenon. In stating this, we must continue searching for answers. This brings forth our understanding, and it brings forth truth in nature. That in itself shouldn't be undermined by the idea of Cause Zero.
Truly in terms of a philosophical hypothesis, we will never understand or grasp Cause Zero, only if we spend these thousands of years and millenials trying out desperate attempts to truly uncover the origin of all. By then we may be sunk into a black hole, and with us dying, so was our hard work. And this must not been seen through the eyes of pessimism or nihilism, but rather in a way of us truly understanding our boundaries of knowledgeability. High dreamers though will always dream, so don’t let this discourage faith. Hopefully when we die, we thrive in place of glory, in everlasting euphoria. And we receive the answers to all our requests, and in that moment we know of the supreme beginning, the Cause Zero and the story of. Our long awaited confusion to be struck with clarity. I do too have high hopes that I will be struck with the clarity and given peace of mind. But while I truly do not know my future, and chaos will lead me into, I do know only one thing is certain about my existence. And that is the fact that I must live and I must die.

[Anonymous No.14183407]

>>14183163

1&2 are very similar, and heavily rely on the assertion of linear time and cause&effect. While non linear time is, at this point, just a theory, nonlinear cause&effect is pretty probable, at least with quantum mechanics. I may be wrong here, but either way "things change therefore there must be a beginning, therefore god" is a nonargument.
Since OP was so kind to complain about shifting goalposts, changing the definition of god until it bears little resemblance to the original premise is a pretty big shifting of goalposts.


>In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things

From my understanding Quantum mechanics kind of allows for things to be both, or neither, depending on how you view it.

>But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now

To be fair I have not yet read the book, but this seems like a pretty big jump from "things can and cannot exist". Energy conservation claims that nothing is capable of going out of existence, too, instead of saying that anything can go out of existence.

4. Is another non argument. Humans assigning properties value has no meaning that there is a god. For example if we take "nobility", what is noble is not objective. Radicals of one religion may say killing is noble, scientists may say experimenting on fetusses is noble as it is for the greater good, the list goes on. TL;DR there is no ojective value.

[Anonymous No.14183414]

>>14183167
To give a light reply to a good post here, I think it is quite fair metaphysically to posit that God's core essence, because of His being God, is the single thing that is perfectly unknowable to mortal beings, and really leave it at that.

So we cannot know some core aspects of God, but his existence is something that should still be posited about in a productive way.

[Anonymous No.14183415]

>>14183377
>explain better what you mean by ''spontaneous'' and ''probabilistic''
it means it changes states on its own with the next state based on chance

>is it because the reality of quanta is grounded on measurement
Maybe. WVC occurs under measurement. Measurement is still an unresolved problem in physics but it can be defined as observing either the position or the momentum of a particle (both can't be measured which also refutes (2) btw). Measurement doesn't extend beyond at least the formation of the first living organism. Therefore the chain doesn't extend to God, disproving (1).

[Anonymous No.14183416]

>>14183221
I see this painting posted so often, and each time I can entranced by it. Ty, anon.

[Anonymous No.14183418]

>>14183407
(2/2) because word limit.

Regarding (5)
This is like the combination of the others and contains:

>non-intelligent objects in the world behave in regular ways
predictable is more accurate, but this claim is fair, at least without the already mentioned quantum mechanics (to some extend).

>This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results.

Again pretty big jump, but as an example let's take statistics. I cannot know what a singular human is going to do, but with statistics I can say what a big enough group is going to do almost perfectly. Same applies to not living things.

> But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior.

I disagree. A glass falling does so because of gravity. Is gravity now god? No. I hope I'm not strawmanning here, because I feel like it, but I can't find another meaning to this paragraph.

>This everyone understands to be God.

Again, moving the goalpost of defining god.


I'm not disproving these claims, but I have objections to them, and writing them out helps me organize my thoughts. Sorry for the long wordsalad

[Anonymous No.14183427]

>>14183415
I'm not the guy you were talking to, but if I may intervene, isn't it possible that our definition of quantum mechanics as chance is just due to a underlying concept that we do not yet understand? And maybe, given we had the required data and theories, they would not be up to chance anymore? I've never studied quantum mechanics obviously, so correct me if I'm wrong here.

[Anonymous No.14183453]

>>14183427
Answer this you physicist fucks

[Anonymous No.14183469]

>>14183416
Welcome anon, I had the same experience when I first saw it, how about part II?

[Anonymous No.14183474]

>>14183469
The contrast between the masculine bodies and feminine is really quite astounding.

[Anonymous No.14183492]

>>14183427
That is correct but 98% of physicsfags don't understand it

>A: So what is the fundamental principle of reality? Why are things the way they are?
>B: Because physical interactions governed by laws make them that way
>A: Okay, but what makes physics and its laws the way they are
>B: More physics
>A: Okay but listen, what's the most basic layer of reality?
>B: Physics
>A: Okay, but why is THAT the way it is? Do you understand why that's not really an answer?
>B: Oh, I see what your problem is now
>A: You do? Thank god! So, what makes physics the way it is?
>B: Quantum physics

[Anonymous No.14183503]

>>14183427
>>14183453
>And maybe, given we had the required data and theories, they would not be up to chance anymore? I've never studied quantum mechanics obviously, so correct me if I'm wrong here.
We already do have tons of data (double slit experiment and its derivatives, atom colliders, bell test experiments, etc.) and they all show some form of probability that is involved. However certain 'interpretations' of QM preserves determinism in some sense (like the many worlds interpretation). It is still an ongoing problem but the data clearly shows probability of outcomes.

>isn't it possible that our definition of quantum mechanics as chance is just due to a underlying concept that we do not yet understand?
Yes and no. Some physicists (Einstein included) have maintained that there must be 'local hidden variables' that explain seemingly absurd quantum phenomena like quantum entanglement which defies local realism and faster than light travel. Bell's theorem was actually proposed for this very purpose, to try and find out if it was possible for local hidden variable theories to explain quantum mechanics, which lead to the 'Bell test inequality experiment' that has been repeated a dozen times now and every result showing that it is still impossible to explain quantum mechanics with local hidden theories (basically theories 'action at a distance' or faster than light travel). Again its an ongoing problem and there is still a chance that we may discover something that explains these data.

[Anonymous No.14183508]

>>14183503
>and there is still a chance that we may discover something that explains these data.

That is basically what I have been asking myself, thanks. I'll look into Bell's theorem, sounds interesting, but there's a good chance I'll be in over my head.

[Anonymous No.14183510]

>>14183492
>yea but 'why' bro
brainlet

[Anonymous No.14183518]

>>14183469
Damn, Albanians had knights?

[Anonymous No.14183537]

>>14183518
Europe was conquered by ILLYRIVN bulls since the time of Alexandrimi the great (who was also Albanian).

[Anonymous No.14183818]

>>14183163
>Whatever is changing is being changed by something else.
Even without the usage of modern physics, this argument doesn't seem to hold up well. Why must it not be an infinite chain?
>But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself
Why not? Does mitosis not create a new identical copy of the original? Or does God select a certain special amoeba and say "one was one but now is two"?
>But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now.
That's quite a leap in logic there. The place everything inhabits could be an exception and even if everything were prone to a certain property, why would that property take effect sooner rather than later?
>4
Replace every "good" adjective with a "bad" one and voilla, some ultimate evil conceived us. However, there is no reason whatsoever to have a best or worst of something to do comparisons.
>We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways.
I'll assume he talks about waterfalls, planets and such. All can be explained easily and after using the appropriate explanation, you easily arrive at the primal mover question yet again...

I've been holding off of reading Aquinas for the longest time because I thought the arguments would be too difficult and that I needed a lot more background in pretty much everything, but these "proofs" are on the same levels of arguments which atheists use to conclusively state that there is no God. Is OP's picture worth a read? Where does Aquinas talk about these proofs of his in detail, now I'm interested to see if there's some intricancies that need more subtle work?

[Anonymous No.14183848]

>>14183510
>

[Anonymous No.14183853]

>>14183162
Feser is religious Harris/Pinker

[Anonymous No.14183858]

>>14183518
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14183889]

>>14183818
These summaries are very short, and not representative of the actual arguments, in their rigorousness.

As for your objection to the first way, it comes down to the way change is analysed. Aristotle (and thus Aquinas) views change as some potential becoming actual. e.g. ice melting is ice (potentially water) becoming actual water. This change (or motion, as Aquinas calls it) must be caused by another actuality (ice is melted by something that is actually hot). But this actuality must be converted from potential by some other object, etc. This chain must have a first element, since without it, no other motion occurs. Thus a first mover must exist.

pic related

[Anonymous No.14184018]

>>14183889
Oh, okay. Then I'll use two examples from modern physics and we can see if either of those circumvents this notion of a perpetual "Actual origin".
The first is the decay of a free neutron, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_neutron_decay.. As the name suggests, a free neutron is one that isn't in any sort of system or influenced by any force. The mean lifetime of such a neutron is (somewhere around) 15 minutes, meaning that one neutron can "turn into" a proton after 7 seconds, one can do so after 9 minutes and 13 seconds and another one could do it 14 minutes and 40 seconds. It does this of its own volition, it's an "unstable" particle. You can observe it directly or see the particles it gives birth to, but nothing but the neutron itself would be its "actual".
The other example is a bit more complex and would take me a couple of posts to explain somewhat sloppily, so I'll put my trust in you to watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
The phenomenon is known as a "quantum eraser" and, from my naive point of view, it's difficult to define what the "potential" and "actual" would be, but even if you do, you'll find (I think) that you don't need to look beyond the setup of the experiment to find the "actual". (I gave the video a watch before posting it, it seems to cover the most necessary concepts needed to explain the quantum eraser. I will fill in the gaps if needed)

>>14183427
The leading interpretation of quantum mechanics is what's known as the Copenhagen interpretation, and that's the one that gives rise to this probabilistic notion of the world. To be completely honest though, we still have no idea which interpretation is correct - there's a plethora of both probabilistic and deterministic explanations which have SOME differences in the underlying mathematics, but they all seem to lead to the same conclusion. Interestingly enough, the most famous equation of Quantum Mechanics, the Schrodinger equation, is deterministic in its nature.
>>14183503
Somewhat nitpicky, sorry, but entanglement does not defy faster-than-light travel, only on a superficial and surface level. And to add more to what you've posted, people have not completely given up on hidden variables - these would be global and would be "wack" to say the least, but the quantum eraser which I posted is one motivation for doing so. >>14183189
>unless you believe that the Universe is eternal and had no beginning
Yesterday I talked a lot about the Big Bang, but there are theories in Cosmology where the Universe had no beginning.

[Anonymous No.14184041]

>>14183197
no difference

[Anonymous No.14184050]

>>14183163
I mean, I don't think atheists have a problem with the unconscious, impersonal basically pantheistic concept of God that is proved here. God in these arguments can just be the world itself, nothing divine or transcendent about it.

[Anonymous No.14184060]

ATHEISTKEKS BTFO

[Anonymous No.14184100]

>>14184050
Pantheism is ruled out because God MUST be distinct from the world: world is contingent but God is necessary. The only way to bridge the gap is to somehow prove that the world is necessary but this is not what follows from any of these arguments.

[Anonymous No.14184183]

>>14183162
>> I don't understand what happens, it must be god

[Anonymous No.14184202]

>>14183344
>it’s another define “nothing” as something poster
Nice dishonesty. You are presupposing quantum mechanics which is not nothingness

[Anonymous No.14184271]

>>14183162
>ultimately a useless argument against Perennialists
Is perennialism a part of any church doctrine?

[Anonymous No.14184283]

>>14184271
Nope, but Perennialists still exist. They have actually been growing pretty quickly thanks to people like Guenon

[Anonymous No.14184286]

>>14184283
>>14184271
And* Perennialists can still use Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways, obviously

[Anonymous No.14184335]

>>14184202
and you are presupposing God, which is even more dishonest. At least the other has actual data behind it.

[Anonymous No.14184351]

>>14183537
>WE WUZ ILLYRIANS N SHEIT

[Anonymous No.14184381]

>>14184283
I know. What I don't understand is how one would reconcile perennialism with integral Christian doctrine, i.e. wouldn't perennialism be considered a heresy by the Church.

[Anonymous No.14184558]

>>14183162
All of natural theology was btfo by the transcendental argument. Basically Aquinas is trying to prove God by presupposing things like causality that only God can be the guarantor of. He should be starting by presupposing God because that's the only way to justify metaphysics

[Sage No.14184592]

>>14184381
Yes, It is considered a Heresy by the church.
But I (and most Perennialists) don't believe the "Church" has any authority over the teachings of Jesus anyway.
Muhummad already came as a huge middle finger from god at the "Christians" who, at this point, are just making fun of Jesus by Larping
"jUsT aCcePt JeSuS aS yOuR lOrD aNd SaViOuR" its super cringe, and a massive exaggeration from what Jesus originally wanted

[Anonymous No.14184598]

>>14184381
>>14184592
And on top of that, Islam is the only religion that you can reconcile Perennialism with, since its stated that Prophets had been sent to everyone all over the earth at some point in time, but that islam is the superior religion over the others. Thats pretty much the conclusion Guenon came to

[Anonymous No.14184600]

>>14183163
>In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else.
That's what we've seen thus far, which is not all there is to be seen. Furthermore, "what we see" is not "what there is."

>2
See the previous.

>In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be.
What the fuck? No, we don't. Even a modal realist has to believe in world closure. Were a possible world to take place in an actual world it would simply be part of that actual world and not a possibility independent of it. This might just be you writing it poorly, so:

>If everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is necessary. This everyone understands to be God.
Why would that be god? Furthermore, why would things possibly not existing, entail them necessarily not existing? It's possible that I get hit by a car in the next 24 hours. How are you jumping from possible to necessary?

>We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc.
No, and even if this were the case, "we see" does not equal "there is." Either way, presuming truth, goodness, nobility etc to prove god when usually it is god which is needed to prove these things (especially according to believers), is idiotic.

>We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results.
Again, "we see." The fact that we organize the universe into useful patterns speaks to how we, as conscious beings, organize things.

>Inanimate objects aren't smart enough to be predictable, therefore god made them that way.
Isn't it harder to be unpredictable anyways? None of this makes sense.

[Anonymous No.14184648]

>>14183299
>non-intelligent patterns

[Anonymous No.14184665]

>>14183163
>But this chain cannot be infinitely long
Obviously false, even in 11th century thinking

[Anonymous No.14184733]

>>14183162
No good reasons to accept the PSR, no way to prove the potency/actuality distinction is real or even explain the concept of potency clearly, serious difficulties in regards to how the concept of a being whose essence includes existence is self-explanatory (if the mere grasping of the concept of God explains why he exists, why do we need a cosmological instead of an ontological argument?)... I fail to see how everyone who has actually done any reading in philosophy outside Feser's blog would be impressed by these arguments.

[Anonymous No.14184984]

>>14184733
Any Thomist twinks willing to take up the challenge?

[Anonymous No.14185457]

>>14183184
because that would be like saying that a paintbrush could paint by itself if it had an infinitely long handle.

[Anonymous No.14185464]

>>14183197
>replacing a necessarily non physical entity with a physical one
ok brainlet

[Anonymous No.14185561]

>>14183162
They're not formulated to be refuted but to be used as logic proof to justify faith... but logics don't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.14185727]

>a priori arguments for god
yikes!

[Anonymous No.14186146]

>>14183163
How does this make a dead desert Jew God?

Particularly when his teachings predate when he was historically supposed to have taught them in other sources?

[Anonymous No.14186223]

>An infinitely good, powerful, and timeless being exists without cause.
>Infinite regress is totally impossible though.

Why? Same logic says God should have a cause.

You can tell he started with trying to prove God and worked backwards.

[Anonymous No.14186235]

Kant deals with the five ways(or at least the first 2, cant remember cause it's been like 6 years since I read it) and the ontological argument as well for like 50 pages in the critique of pure reason.

He obviously presents the biggest challenge to thomistic philosophy from which thomism never recovered. Kind of weird you dont know that.

[Anonymous No.14187454]

>>14183274
just wondering, which part of the critique does Kant specifically talk about Aquinas? i don't think i could manage reading it right now but am interested in the topic at hand

[Anonymous No.14187623]

Didnt Kant refute the Cosmological Argument?

[Anonymous No.14187902]

>>14183162
>dude let me just take aristotle's cosmological argument and shoehorn my christian bullshit into it
I want to beat at least one Thomist to a pulp before I die

[Anonymous No.14188516]

>>14187902
Why isnt christianity compatible with it?

[Anonymous No.14188527]

>>14187454
Its in part 2 if I remember correctly, its in a specific section where he deals with it, but he does reference the ontological argument which immediately precedes it so its worth starting with that even if you don't like the ontological argument.

Keep in mind that your acceptance of his argument may be diminished by not having worked through the first part of the critique but I think its still a great counterargument even if you necessarily buy all of Kant's other arguments.

>>14187623
Yeah thats what everyone in this thread has been saying it looks like but fuckin op somehow has never heard how one of the top 3 most important philosophers answered the very question he's asking.

Also thats what makes all the reactionary christians on youtube who "debunk" fedoras so much more cringy, like bro you're just as bad as the fedoras when you're not dealing with Kant.

[Anonymous No.14188543]

>>14188527
Kant isnt really common curriculum so it isnt really a surpise that neither fedoras nor christians are familiar with him. I only learned about him recently and i'm in absolute shock at how ignorant I was at something so revolutionary. The americian education system really is a fucking joke.
Anyway, is Thomism basically irrecoverably btfo by Kant? I would have thought Thomists would have had enough prestige and backing by major institutions like the vatican to mount a defense

[Anonymous No.14188548]

when did the religion threads start creeping back in here again?
i thought all you shitheads had finally fucked off

[Anonymous No.14188554]

anyone tl;dr on the Kant thing or do I have to read it?

[Anonymous No.14188596]

>>14188554
https://youtu.be/q9Wri_KcTj8
This guys has like a 5 part series of lectures. You could also just order an intro to kant textbook

[Anonymous No.14188787]

>>14188543
Yeah Kant would be really hard to have as something taught in K-12 because its honestly probably too hard(especially since you really need to start with the greeks to have the foundation to see where he's coming from) but I feel he's super common at the university level. Even at my junior college in our 'advanced' critical thinking course we had a month of Kant. Hard to understand why people who love philosophy wouldn't be knowledgable about Kant given his immense influence but I think it boils down to a "he's HARD" thing.

I think Thomism and that whole mode of thinking was definitely btfo by Kant. That whole field just became dryer than the Saharas much in the same way Newtonian mechanics dried up when modern physics came around. Nobody publishes paper on newtonian mechanics anymore and I've read quite a few philosophy journals and never see any papers about thomism or scholasticism for I think the same reason. You dont get to be one of the most influential philosophers of all time(I know some Kant fanboys that swear he's the most important after plato) without BTFO of a couple schools of thought.

>>14188554
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#The_ideal_of_pure_reason

Thats as close to a tl:dr you're gonna get that will actually be somewhat informative.