The Cosmological Argument (Thomas Aquinas)

[Robbo]

Thomas Aquinas was a Christian monk who developed 5 ways to prove the existence of God the first 3 were the Cosmological Argument. He was inspired by Aristotle and the Argument was made a long time ago (i forget the exact date but it was before the earth was discovered to be round). The three ways were Motion, Cause, Necessity. It is a heated subjects among philosophers and even Stephen Hawking has something to say on the topic.

I want to hear peoples views on this please and also peoples Religious Alignments. I am an Agnostic

[Heartless Angel]

I personally can't agree with his argument, the fact that something had to come first does absolutely nothing in the way of proving God exists or was that which came first. I can agree that there must have been something at the beginning, without which nothing else could exist, but one can just as easily say that thing WAS the universe. Obviously nothing could exist within the universe without the universe to exist in. The assumption that the first cause must have been divine is simply the arrogant assertion of one's own belief that a God that can't be proven needs no proof but a universe which we all KNOW exists does.

Aquinas says that the universe can't be the First Cause because it could concievably not exist. The fact that he's even TRYING to prove God exists poses the possibility that he may not, and many people believe h does not. So the argument falls apart right there. I can imagine a universe without a God, but not the Christian concept of God without this universe, so it's definitely not the only possible cause of it.

I also can't fathom existence without the universe, because what we understand as existence is contained within our universe. I also can't fathom the universe appearing from nowehere, because scientific Law says matter can't be created, so I have no problem at all believing that the universe is the First Cause and was always here in some form. If I'm to accept that there is something that has always been there and requires no cause to be explained, I'm a Hell of a lot more likely to believe it's something I can actually prove exists than a God praised by a religion that's only been around for a couple thousand years.

I'm athiest.

[SOLDIER #819]

I don't really remember what Aristotle's or Aquinas's arguments were specifically, just that an "originator" (in a causal chain, chain of movement, perfection, or whatever) had to be posited in order to avoid some sort of infinite regress. What I came out of it with was that it's pretty convincing if you agree with everything they assume prior to making the argument. So if you're afraid of loops then perhaps you'll be siding with it to some degree whether you believe in God or not.

I'm not a rationalist at heart. Some pretty hefty claims have to be made to make the argument sound and I can't say I agree with them. That goes for just about any argument, though.

[Jin]

even Stephen Hawking has something to say on the topic.

And yet you don't seem to. Not even an explanation as to what you're talking about. I'll probably lose some philosophy cred for this, but we don't all know Aquinas' or Aristotle's theories, certainly not in their entirety. Could you perhaps elaborate on them? I'm not usually one to advocate having to explain simple things in threads, but this is hardly simple.

I can agree that there must have been something at the beginning, without which nothing else could exist, but one can just as easily say that thing WAS the universe.

If that's the case, then there was no beginning as the universe would be eternal. If terminology like "beginning" is going to be used, time must be conceived of as being linear. A progenitor then must transcend that which we experience to be both eternal and the beginning at the same time. Hence, God, or some variation, comes into the picture. There is also a theory in theoretical physics that has spacetime's existence as having a beginning, but I don't know enough about it to address what it brings to the table. It's not so much that the beginning can't be the universe, but it's difficult to reconcile something that begins with something that has no cause. Of course, as we all know, logic isn't worth a hell of a lot in the world of philosophical metaphysics.

If I'm to accept that there is something that has always been there and requires no cause to be explained, I'm a Hell of a lot more likely to believe it's something I can actually prove exists

But you can't prove it exists. I know people hate when I pull the epistemology card, but one simply cannot prove the universe you experience is that which really exists. Actually, maybe you can, depending on what your definition of "exist" is. That's the ultimate challenge, isn't it? If you're definition is simply what you can experience with your empirical senses, then absolutely you can prove that the universe you experience exists. That, however, in no way proves the universe you experience exists externally from your senses. It could exist in your head, it could be a mass simulation, like the Matrix, or it could be a thousand other ways. My point here is that when dealing with philosophy, especially metaphysics and epistemology, you cannot treat a "you can't prove X" argument as being more worthy than a "you cannot disprove Y" argument. That kind of logic works within the confines of science, but it serves no purpose in big picture philosophy.

Please don't take this as a slight, it wasn't intended as one.

[Heartless Angel]

Goodie, a fellow philosophizper. I ****in' love me some philosophical debate!

If that's the case, then there was no beginning as the universe would be eternal. If terminology like "beginning" is going to be used, time must be conceived of as being linear. A progenitor then must transcend that which we experience to be both eternal and the beginning at the same time. Hence, God, or some variation, comes into the picture. There is also a theory in theoretical physics that has spacetime's existence as having a beginning, but I don't know enough about it to address what it brings to the table. It's not so much that the beginning can't be the universe, but it's difficult to reconcile something that begins with something that has no cause. Of course, as we all know, logic isn't worth a hell of a lot in the world of philosophical metaphysics.

And I very much believe there was no true beginning to everything, nor do I believe time begins or ends. I believe that us as 3 dimensional being trying to fully understand time is like an NES side-scroller character trying to understand depth, it's just not possible to achieve a perfect understanding, though this is neither here nor there, so I'll drop my theories on time. Using the term beginning almost sounds more like stating time is NOT linear, since by definition a line goes in both directions forever without end. The only way it truly makes sense to think that God fits into the puzzle, is if we started putting the puzzle together assuming God was a piece in it. Again, I believe time is a limitless dimension, not nescessarily linear, but without beginning or end, in which case it makes sense that everything that can't be created or destroyed over time has simply always been here. Unfortunately in the previous statement, I've made the same logical error that I just finished attacking... I have to agree wholeheartedly that metaphysics and logic simply don't mix.

But you can't prove it exists. I know people hate when I pull the epistemology card, but one simply cannot prove the universe you experience is that which really exists. Actually, maybe you can, depending on what your definition of "exist" is. That's the ultimate challenge, isn't it? If you're definition is simply what you can experience with your empirical senses, then absolutely you can prove that the universe you experience exists. That, however, in no way proves the universe you experience exists externally from your senses. It could exist in your head, it could be a mass simulation, like the Matrix, or it could be a thousand other ways. My point here is that when dealing with philosophy, especially metaphysics and epistemology, you cannot treat a "you can't prove X" argument as being more worthy than a "you cannot disprove Y" argument. That kind of logic works within the confines of science, but it serves no purpose in big picture philosophy.

Nah, I actually love philosophical mind****ing. My definition of existence is a bit... odd. I define existence in terms of what we percieve it to be. I assume you're familiar with the allegory of the cave, if not, I apologise in advance for making you go look it up XD. Though Plato says what's outside the cave, that which can you can see only after escaping the chains is the more important reality, he never says that the shadows did not exist. The materialists would have to agree that since this world is observable, explainable, and made of matter, that what we call the universe exists. The idealists would also have to agree, that if everything around us were thoughts, and we had an understanding of the universe, it must exist as thoughts. Even if there's more beyond our universe, the universe does exist. To refer back to the Matrix example, just because there was a unvierse outside the program doesn't make the program imaginary or nonexistant, it was still very much there.

Also, I don't want to come off as though I'm support the fallacy of misplacing the burden of proof. By no means do I completely refute the posssibility of a reality beyond, above, outside or whatever of ours, or the possibility of a divine being. I suppose you could call me agnostic, though I could debate the syntax of that name in relation to my beliefs. If we were testing a factual claim, such a the existence of God, then lack of exidence either way is definitely not a relevant premise, but evaluating a normative question, such as "Should I believe in God?", then I can certainly say the abscence of evidence one way is a good reason not to believe it. Basically, I don't simply believe in the impossibility of God, but that it's more likely that he doesn't exist and that the universe we can observe is all that exists rather than the other way around.

And thanks for the reply, I like being forced to think every so often.

[Robbo]

And yet you don't seem to. Not even an explanation as to what you're talking about. I'll probably lose some philosophy cred for this, but we don't all know Aquinas' or Aristotle's theories, certainly not in their entirety. Could you perhaps elaborate on them? I'm not usually one to advocate having to explain simple things in threads, but this is hardly simple.

Yeah sorry about this i was going to look at what people generally had to say then describe it some more but i was London the past 2 days so i missed your posts.

As of yet i have only read up to your posts about time and here would be my view on that time is not Infinite and my best piece of evidence for this would be That David Hume had said Aquinas had made a fallacy of composition which translates too just because we see the sun rise and set everyday doesent mean it will tomorrow we assume it will because of our own experiences we can apply this to time in that we have experience of time just being there always but none of us experienced the beginning of the universe so we cant apply this to today.

The Big bang is seen as the cause of the universe if that is true then thats when time began so we have to assume that when the universe ends so will time. I left out the basic principle that whatever has a beginning must have an end, sorry.

[SOLDIER #819]

The cosmological argument could be stated as follows:

1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2. A causal loop cannot exist.
3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4. Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.

I'll give examples based on how I remember it being explained to me and whatever I come across, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Plato and Aristotle posed this arguments themselves, though Aristotle is more well-known for his Unmoved Mover/Uncaused Cause (God for Aquinas). As part of his philosophy he stated that all things "move" toward something, constantly changing in order to become it is they strive to become. So an acorn "moves" to become a tree, a child "moves" to become a man, etc. This is a rough description, as he talks about things like potentiality and actuality, both which differ from modern physics. The important thing, however, is the "movement" is involved.

In order for something to move, something must have caused its movement. A seed would not be able to become a flower if the flower from which that seed came from did not first exist. If you keep going back down the chain of events you find that it is infinite. In order to explain the existence of this infinite chain, it is necessary to assume the existence of something who's existence is not contingent on something else, but who's existence everything else is contingent on. Something that first moved everything, but that that was never moved (Unmoved Mover).

The reason for why infinite chains (or loops, which I never studied) do not provide proper explanations can be found... on Wiki. They go over it briefly in the Cosmological argument article. Either way it was an assumption made long before the argument itself, so if you don't agree with it then it may be better to put fault on that assumption rather than the argument.

Aquinas's 5 proofs can be found here: Religion B2: Aquinas's Five Proofs

It should be noted (though I may be remembering it wrong) that Aquinas's 5th proof is not a cosmological argument. It is a teleological argument and deals more with design.

Someone edit this into the first post?

Edit: Hi Jin.

[OnOneRyder]

The first 3 directly contradict a creator by saying everything needs a cause, and nothing can be put into motion without a mover. Religion is constantly using these self-disproving arguments with the pretense that they do not apply to god himself. I'm sorry, but that's not how logic works. You don't make a set of rules to apply to everything except the first circumstance. This is why religion fails miserably at being acceptable when you apply logical thinking. The appropriate step is to either admit you don't know, or to reject the postulation because of a lack of evidence.

[Jin]

Using the term beginning almost sounds more like stating time is NOT linear, since by definition a line goes in both directions forever without end. The only way it truly makes sense to think that God fits into the puzzle, is if we started putting the puzzle together assuming God was a piece in it.

In retrospect, the word "linear" was a mistake on my part. Perhaps describing it as a line segment would be more accurate, one that has a beginning and an end. Though this is now moot as you've already explained that you do not advocate such a theory on time and the universe.

My definition of existence is a bit... odd. I define existence in terms of what we percieve it to be. I assume you're familiar with the allegory of the cave, if not, I apologise in advance for making you go look it up XD. Though Plato says what's outside the cave, that which can you can see only after escaping the chains is the more important reality, he never says that the shadows did not exist. The materialists would have to agree that since this world is observable, explainable, and made of matter, that what we call the universe exists. The idealists would also have to agree, that if everything around us were thoughts, and we had an understanding of the universe, it must exist as thoughts. Even if there's more beyond our universe, the universe does exist. To refer back to the Matrix example, just because there was a unvierse outside the program doesn't make the program imaginary or nonexistant, it was still very much there.

I don't think this is odd at all. In fact, I agree with it. Existence need not be confined to matter or energy. Thoughts and ideas exist in terms that are just as "real". The solipsist concern of nothing but himself existing is a bit misdirected as the very act of contemplating a perceived world is proof of its existence. I suppose one could expand upon Descartes' "I think therefore I am" trope by adding, "I think about them, therefore they are".

but evaluating a normative question, such as "Should I believe in God?", then I can certainly say the abscence of evidence one way is a good reason not to believe it.

The problem here is that, when it comes right down to it, the evidence is nothing more than one's subjective feeling. Evidence for or against god, as you've noted, does not exist in any objective sense, so one is always basing their decision on some measure of faith. After all, there's no reason why nothing must trump something as a default. Holding that something must exist until proven otherwise seems just as logical to me as the alternative. But that's just me.

[Heartless Angel]

In retrospect, the word "linear" was a mistake on my part. Perhaps describing it as a line segment would be more accurate, one that has a beginning and an end. Though this is now moot as you've already explained that you do not advocate such a theory on time and the universe.

Ah, so by linear you just meant running in one direction, that makes alot more sense lol.

The problem here is that, when it comes right down to it, the evidence is nothing more than one's subjective feeling. Evidence for or against god, as you've noted, does not exist in any objective sense, so one is always basing their decision on some measure of faith. After all, there's no reason why nothing must trump something as a default. Holding that something must exist until proven otherwise seems just as logical to me as the alternative. But that's just me.

It's not so much faith in anything with me. I've observed the material world with my empirical senses, so it's what I believe exists, and I try to explain all things in terms of it. One could say I'm a materialist, but again I don't completely refute the possibility of a spiritual or mental world, I just haven't observed it, and as a result can't think as clearly in terms of it. Personally I can't agree with your last statement, unlike alot of people, I'm perfectly willing to say that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

[Jin]

It's not so much faith in anything with me. I've observed the material world with my empirical senses, so it's what I believe exists, and I try to explain all things in terms of it.

This is an act of faith though, at least in the sense I'm using the term. When I say faith, I don't mean the belief in something despite contrary evidence, I mean the belief in something despite concrete evidence. You've already stated that you don't rule out the possibility of an extra-sensory existence, but even knowing that, you still make decisions based on an opposing idea of reality. You do so because you believe it more likely to be the case and as such you have enough faith in it to act in accordance with it. We all do it as it's impossible to be sure of anything in an absolute sense (yes, I know that's a paradoxical sentence). The point I'm trying to get across is that those that believe in a progenitor being do so for the same reasons that those who do not, do not: because it seems more likely to them to be the case. Either way, one's actions are based on some level of faith in that which they believe most likely to be true, even if the action in question is to do nothing.

I'm perfectly willing to say that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

David Hume had said Aquinas had made a fallacy of composition which translates too just because we see the sun rise and set everyday doesent mean it will tomorrow we assume it will because of our own experiences we can apply this to time in that we have experience of time just being there always but none of us experienced the beginning of the universe so we cant apply this to today.

whatever has a beginning must have an end

Hmm?

[Heartless Angel]

This is an act of faith though, at least in the sense I'm using the term. When I say faith, I don't mean the belief in something despite contrary evidence, I mean the belief in something despite concrete evidence. You've already stated that you don't rule out the possibility of an extra-sensory existence, but even knowing that, you still make decisions based on an opposing idea of reality. You do so because you believe it more likely to be the case and as such you have enough faith in it to act in accordance with it. We all do it as it's impossible to be sure of anything in an absolute sense (yes, I know that's a paradoxical sentence). The point I'm trying to get across is that those that believe in a progenitor being do so for the same reasons that those who do not, do not: because it seems more likely to them to be the case. Either way, one's actions are based on some level of faith in that which they believe most likely to be true, even if the action in question is to do nothing.

I generally don't use the term faith when evidence has been considered and points to a conclusion. Usually when I use the term faith, I refer to most would call blind faith. People like Aquinas who actually attempt to find evidence, or prove a progenitor, I have absolutely no problem with. What I hate are the blind faith religious people who actively acknowledge that they haven't an iota of evidence or logic to support their views. And when you try to argue with their flawed logic, they simply hide behind the bible claiming that it is evidence because it is the word of the entity in question (the fallacy of begging the question). I see this as the philosophical equivalent of a 3 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALA!" really loud until you stop arguing with them. That's the kind of person I immediately think of when faith is brought up in debate >.< So, my bad on misinterpreting you there.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

The way I see it, anything that exists leaves some trace of itself. If I'm trying to track an animal, and there's no trail to follow, no place it could be hiding, nothing around it could be sustaining itself off of, and no evidence that this animal actually exists; my first assumption isn't that what I'm trailing is magical and leaves no footprints, is a mammal capable of photosynthesis, is invisible, and so amazing it can alert people to its presence without any observable means... but rather that I am in fact chasing nothing. Not to say there's no chance that I'm really chasing the aforementioned magical photosynthetic mammal, but it seems significantly more likely that there's really nothing out there. I certainly don't mean to say absence of evidence is PROOF of absence, but I will say it's evidence. Not a perfect metaphor, I know, but that's kinda how I see things.

[Jin]

The first 3 directly contradict a creator by saying everything needs a cause, and nothing can be put into motion without a mover.

Hmm?

1) Aquinas only states that finite, contingent objects need a cause. God, according to Aquinas, is neither finite nor contingent. This does not contradict a creator being.

2) There is no causal loop in Aquinas' scenario. The infinite creates the first cause of the finite which continues, presumably, until the infinite stops it. There's no loop there.

3) The causal chain has a beginning - when the infinite created the chain - and it has an end - when the infinite stops it or when an effect fails to create a cause. It is not an infinite causal chain.

So, how exactly do the first 3 contradict a creator being? There's a lot of holes one could poke in Aquinas' argument, but that's not one of them. And for the record, this isn't about religion or your qualms with it. This is about philosophical thought. Don't confuse the two simply because Aquinas was coming from a religious perspective.


Hi, S.

[OnOneRyder]

Hmm?

1) Aquinas only states that finite, contingent objects need a cause. God, according to Aquinas, is neither finite nor contingent. This does not contradict a creator being.

2) There is no causal loop in Aquinas' scenario. The infinite creates the first cause of the finite which continues, presumably, until the infinite stops it. There's no loop there.

3) The causal chain has a beginning - when the infinite created the chain - and it has an end - when the infinite stops it or when an effect fails to create a cause. It is not an infinite causal chain.

So, how exactly do the first 3 contradict a creator being? There's a lot of holes one could poke in Aquinas' argument, but that's not one of them. And for the record, this isn't about religion or your qualms with it. This is about philosophical thought. Don't confuse the two simply because Aquinas was coming from a religious perspective.


Hi, S.

Edited to be a little more clear.

The problem with this way of thinking is that anyone who tries to set up rules with preconceived necessities such as god being infinite have already ruined any chance of providing unbiased logic. That is not logical critical thinking, that is molding logic to what fits to your needs. Saying that there CAN'T be an infinite number of causes, or there CAN'T be an infinite number of movers is demanding the rules follow not logic, but ones ideals of what is necessary to fit ones belief. Not logical at all.

[Jin]

Edited to be a little more clear.

The problem with this way of thinking is that anyone who tries to set up rules with preconceived necessities such as god being infinite have already ruined any chance of providing unbiased logic. That is not logical critical thinking, that is molding logic to what fits to your needs. Saying that there CAN'T be an infinite number of causes, or there CAN'T be an infinite number of movers is demanding the rules follow not logic, but ones ideals of what is necessary to fit ones belief. Not logical at all.

People do that all the time though. That's hardly specific to religion or philosophic theories which come from a religious perspective. Heartless Angel said it quite well already when he said:

"I've observed the material world with my empirical senses, so it's what I believe exists, and I try to explain all things in terms of it."


Everyone tries to understand the universe in terms of that which they understand. For those inclined towards believing in creator beings, assumptions are made in that direction, for those inclined to believe the various origin theories purported by science, assumptions are made in a different direction. One cannot make a theory without making some assumptions simply because our perspectives are limited. That's the trap of logic. Many will defend the contrary to their deaths, but logic itself is an assumption. We assume that we live in a universe that's rational and predictable with rules that can be comprehended, even if only by a being more intelligent than ourselves, and that things have to "make sense" to be true. But this cannot be verified as we cannot view such un-logic from a perspective other than our own. Perhaps things that make no sense whatsoever to us make perfect sense to a being so utterly alien to ourselves and perhaps that which makes sense to us is utterly incomprehensible and illogical to this being. We're all making assumptions - we have to to stay sane. All we can really do is be aware of them and realize that we know nothing for certain. This is true of everyone.

[fragdemon]

Some thoughts from what I'm seeing happen so far:

1) Careful!
To Jin and HeartlessAngel, but especially HeartlessAngel:

Be careful about the language of "Cause" vs. "Beginning." Beginning has a temporal connotation and you guys are letting temporal issues carry you off from the cosmological argument proper.

I think you should be looking at the cosmological as S819 sets it up for the clearest form of argument, and deal with it there. The universe could be eternal, without any beginning in time, but still have a cause. The universe could also only be 35 days old and have a clear beginning, but started spontaneously, without cause.

You have to make sure not to use the terms or concepts interchangeably. Not that Aquinas wouldn't agree that the universe is probably a contained chain of temporal events as well (he was a Catholic monk after all and probably imagined something like Genesis as the beginning of history), but it is NOT part of his argument.

When we talk about God being the sustainer of existence, we can imagine the first cause argument being upheld right now without reference to beginnings or ends. For example:

The world around me exists. Why?
Cause: It existed a second ago.
The universe continues existing from moment to moment. Why?
Cause: Things that exist stay into existence unless some external force destroys them.
Some sort of law of conservation of matter exists. Why?

And so on and so forth in a way that Aquinas would rule has to lead back to God before we go crazy.
____________

2) Prominent Detractors of the Cosmological Argument
It seems we're creating an ever expanding reading list, and I feel like a lot of time can be saved by looking at the folks who took really important and lasting cracks against the Cosmological Argument.

Someone mentioned David Hume's challenge above, just want to outline that:
Basically, David Hume thinks that we're working with too restricted a version of causality.

Aquinas and other Cosmological Apologists makes this weird assumption:

Material things need external causes.

I suppose it's not that weird unless you consider this other weird assumption:

The immaterial God doesn't need an external cause.

Well, if God doesn't need a cause, why does a rock? Why does ANYTHING need a cause. Now, it seems that most everything we encounter happen to have causes, but that could be a matter of luck or a matter of our limited perception. It's just not a big deal or any necessary logical contradiction to imagine objects popping into existence for no particular reason.

It's weird, it's out of the ordinary of our experience, but it's not a logical impossibility. (And really, since I've never seen an immaterial being cause a material event, God's existence as first mover is equally weird and out of the ordinary... but also not a logical impossibility; Hume never meant to disprove God, just to advocate a more skeptical position).



Kant's Treatment: Kant describes his entire career as beginning with Hume. Hume's skepticism tore apart every belief a human being can hope to have, and Kant simply wouldn't have it. So with his Critiques he used the scientific/mathematic tradition he was raised in to come up with a new logic and organization of knowledge that would save certain kinds of knowing from Hume.

What Kant found he couldn't save in terms of a logical standpoint was Theology. Simply put, on the level of "Pure Reason," there was no way to prove anything meaningful about God. Kant broke all of the arguments for God's existence ever proposed into 3 categories and found that all 3 of them are beyond Pure Reason to figure out. One of those three arguments was the cosmological argument, and his challenge mainly runs at the idea of causality.

Causality is not a logical necessity like what one finds in mathematical concepts. Adding 2 and 3 does not cause 5; 2+3 simply is 5. Cause is a "Relation," something that emerges from the way we understand material* existence. Placing 2 items on my desk along with 3 items on my desk causes a collection of 5 items. Throwing them onto the floor will cause certain noises. Throwing them through my window will cause it to break.

If you think about it, you have no idea what an immaterial* being CAUSING a phenomenal event even means. And applying our material* understandings to an immaterial* event is just an inappropriate use of a relational category that does not produce any meaningful knowledge.

*By the way, when I use "material" and "immaterial" above, Kant used "phenomenal" and "noumenal" respectively. They are NOT the same thing, but they're weird to explain and not entirely necessary to illustrate what I'm talking about, so I didn't use them.

Now, Kant wasn't an atheist. Far from it. He just thought there were other arenas outside of logic/pure reason (where Descartes and Aquinas were working from) to understand God. Kant's Critique of Practical Reason restores ways of understanding God, freedom, etc. through action. By behaving in certain ways, we affirm a certain religious logic whether we are intellectually religious or not. And luckily, for atheists and agnostics out there, even if you are behaving by a religious logic, it doesn't mean you have to intellectually believe in God. The Critique of Pure Reason still holds.
______________

Aight, now specific addresses of some of the more recent posts:

Originally Posted by [B]HeartlessAngel[B]
What I hate are the blind faith religious people who actively acknowledge that they haven't an iota of evidence or logic to support their views. And when you try to argue with their flawed logic, they simply hide behind the bible claiming that it is evidence because it is the word of the entity in question (the fallacy of begging the question). I see this as the philosophical equivalent of a 3 year old sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "LALALALALALALALALA!" really loud until you stop arguing with them.

As a theology major, I want to make sure to give more credit to those whom you challenge for their "blind faith."

I do not know if you remember what it is like to have a personal conviction challenged (since we were all 3 year olds going "lalala" once, it has happened to all of us), but the experience is something strongly physiological. When people say things that challenge some of MY beliefs, for example... my moral beliefs because I don't have too many logical beliefs, I can feel things very viscerally.

For example, as an ardent feminist, the way I hear some people talk about rape makes my throat tighten, my stomach ache, etc.

If you are talking empirical experience, there is LOADS of it there. Even more so in experiences we label divine. Call it a hallucination if you want, but don't for a second imagine that this is just spontaneously reinforced belief. A stomach ache, a clenching of the fist, these physical sensations are as real as light shining on the eye of the biologist as he observes through a microscope. Now, we have for some reason prioritized one empirical experience over the other. And why have we done that?

I can think of tons of reasons, but I do not want to pretend they aren't arbitary. When I am a researcher, I stick to Popper's criterion of falsifiability for my meaningful theories. But when I am an artist, a poet, or a lover, I use different criteria. The fact that I can switch means that all of these choices are philosophical commitments, not arbitrarily chosen things.

So what you see as the circular reasoning of a Fundamentalist are truths that interact with a rich physiological experience and a logic that is no more self-contained than Newtonian physics were before Einstein took a crack at them. (And when a paradigm shift like that comes along, watch the physicists put their fingers in their ears).

Originally Posted by Jin
Everyone tries to understand the universe in terms of that which they understand. For those inclined towards believing in creator beings, assumptions are made in that direction, for those inclined to believe the various origin theories purported by science, assumptions are made in a different direction. One cannot make a theory without making some assumptions simply because our perspectives are limited. That's the trap of logic. Many will defend the contrary to their deaths, but logic itself is an assumption. We assume that we live in a universe that's rational and predictable with rules that can be comprehended, even if only by a being more intelligent than ourselves, and that things have to "make sense" to be true.

Quoth Hume: Reason is and ought only to be slave of the passions.

I tend to affiliate pretty strongly with Hume in terms of my personal taste. But...

Originally Posted by Jin
But this cannot be verified as we cannot view such un-logic from a perspective other than our own. Perhaps things that make no sense whatsoever to us make perfect sense to a being so utterly alien to ourselves and perhaps that which makes sense to us is utterly incomprehensible and illogical to this being. We're all making assumptions - we have to to stay sane. All we can really do is be aware of them and realize that we know nothing for certain. This is true of everyone.

Not that what you're saying here is untrue, but I think philosophers are unnecessarily unfair to the vastness of our perspective.

Bertrand Russell and friends did some mean things to the logic at the level we've been using in this discussion by taking a perspective far unlike what all human beings before the era of him and his colleagues used. As philosophy gets more bored with itself, we will be seeing more radical twists.

Also, if I can take a neopragmatist view and think about our knowledge and our logic in relationship to our world (and I am using this in a broader phenomenological/linguistic reality sense, not in terms of material things necessarily) then we have an issue not only of sanity, but an issue of usefulness. I suspect that if we do encounter the aliens (or when another species on earth evolves to sentience) that the philosophers are going to be remarkably bored with how familiar its way of thinking truly is (except for maybe some interesting twists and nuances based on the embodiment of knowledge... this is the wrong discussion for that).
__________

Originally Posted by HeartlessAngel
he way I see it, anything that exists leaves some trace of itself. If I'm trying to track an animal, and there's no trail to follow, no place it could be hiding, nothing around it could be sustaining itself off of, and no evidence that this animal actually exists; my first assumption isn't that what I'm trailing is magical and leaves no footprints, is a mammal capable of photosynthesis, is invisible, and so amazing it can alert people to its presence without any observable means... but rather that I am in fact chasing nothing.

Let me modify your analogy.

A hunter is hunting for a deer in his house. In his house, he finds no trails to follow, no place it can be hiding, nothing around it could be sustaining itself off of, and no evidence that the animal exists. So the hunter reasons, with you, that he is chasing nothing. The deer is about 50 feet outside of his house, in the forest.

Even better: A hunter is hunting for a deer inside the forest. He looks in the skies, and finds no trail to follow, he climbs up on trees looking for hiding spots and finds no place it can be hiding, and sees that the forest is out of food. He reasons, with you, that he is chasing nothing. The deer has been following him the entire time (so the trail is constantly behind him) and the hunter does not look around.

One final take: A zoologist looks for a bird. The bird doesn't leave trails, doesn't need to hide because it can simply evade one's gaze, and picks worms that are underground when the researcher does his exploration. He reasons, with you, that he is chasing nothing.

Your example uses kinda an extreme strawman idea of the way religious people might be arguing. They aren't arguing that the deer is magical and doesn't leave a trace. They argue that people are incompetent in their search, are looking in a way inappropriate to what they're finding, or are just looking for a hard bit of prey.

The reason the whole "absence of evidence" = "evidence of absence"" thing is something the whole scientific community dropped is it because it takes for granted that the ways we have of seeing the world are constant and final. Einstein theorized a lot of things before they were found empirically. In fact, people usually design experiments around theories. That is to say, it's only by entertaining the idea that the deer is there that we even hunt for it in the first place.

It seems like your commitment to the whole "absence of evidence" thing actually gets in the way of some other philosophical commitments you seem to be espousing here. Unless you want to do away with scientific inquiry, and really experiential inquiry in general, you want to start thinking differently.

[Heartless Angel]

And so on and so forth in a way that Aquinas would rule has to lead back to God before we go crazy.

At the point at which (asumming it ever DOES) lead back to God, I'd only go crazier. I'm not suddenly going to stop asking "Why?" when we resort to unproven unobservable magical entities. In fact now, instead of JUST asking why, I'm going to want a how, what, when, and where too. Good luck staying sane working with that >.<

We as a species don't even fully agree on the CONCEPT of God, let alone whether he/she/it actually exists. This is like declaring that an unknown object exists inside of a sealed soundproof room which nobody has ever set foot in, can't hear inside of, and can't see into by any means. This object is OBVIOUSLY the begginning/cause/whatever of everything right? No! This makes no sense at all. We aren't even sure there IS an object in the room, even if we agreed there was, we still haven't the slightest clue what it is or what it does. How could we possibly even begin to debate what his object does when we don't even know if it exists, and if it does, what it is? The only way we can make an argument like this about this object, is if we assume we already know what it is and what its function is. Problem being, we don't. We may have theories, but at the end of the day, we just don't know. None of us have seen it. Those who claim they have can't prove they have. Even if half the planet agrees on what's inside, they still don't know.

As I said, the only way this argument makes sense is if you assume God exists in the way you (in this case Aquinas) believe he does (based on faith, not evidence) before attempting to make the argument. Then going on to say that this being is beyond explanation, only further points out the fact that you don't really understand what it is at all.

As a theology major, I want to make sure to give more credit to those whom you challenge for their "blind faith."

I do not know if you remember what it is like to have a personal conviction challenged (since we were all 3 year olds going "lalala" once, it has happened to all of us), but the experience is something strongly physiological. When people say things that challenge some of MY beliefs, for example... my moral beliefs because I don't have too many logical beliefs, I can feel things very viscerally.

For example, as an ardent feminist, the way I hear some people talk about rape makes my throat tighten, my stomach ache, etc.

There is no credit to be given to the concept which they advocate when blind faith is their only reason for doing so.

Personally, I can't remember ever being like that, I could be wrong. I remember my two favorite things to say as a child were "Why?", and "Prove it". (This is probably what lead to my disbelief in God, because these questions and demands got me kicked out of a Christian school.) I was fully aware of what I did and did not know. Those that fell into the second category, I wanted to put into the first, so I asked questions until people got tired of answering them.

Let's assume for a moment that your femenist views were wrong (not at all saying they are, just for the sake of example). Did your stomache ache and tight throat make them right for that short period of time? Absolutely not. When something is straight up wrong, being put in pain by the proof that it is wrong does not change the fact that it is wrong. We have prioritized one empirical sense over another for a very simple reason. One is relevant to the conclusion, the other is not. In fact it is a fallacy of relevance known as wishful thinking. Yes, people have a right to believe what they want. If you want to believe in God, wonderful, do so. Don't attempt to argue to me that he exists if you can't tolerate my rebuttal.

And when physicists do it, I don't support it. Being wrong is universal. If a physicist can't handle having his theory tested and proven wrong, perhaps he should find a new line of work.

Let me modify your analogy

Since you wan't realistic, let me modify it further.

I am not the only hunter in search of this creature. In fact there are about 6 billion of us looking for it.

None of us have EVER seen a deer, we're not even sure what it is, but like the religious, we have already decided what it eats, what it looks like, and everything else about it (in this case let's pretend we were right)

Not one of us has ever seen it's track. Some of us have claimed to, but none can prove it.

There is not any trace of what we have decided the deer eats anywhere on the face of the earth, collectively we've searched pretty much the whole damn thing. Some of us climbed the trees, some of us checked the skies. Some of us built the Hubble space telescope and checked OTHER planets. We STILL haven't found any trace of deer. This is supposed to be an entire species, and we can't find one? Where the Hell are these little bastards hiding?

None of us can prove through any form of deductive logic that deer exist.

The guy who told us about deer came from 2000 years ago, and he also believed that the world was flat, the sun orbitted the earth, leeches were a cure for disease, and taking a drill to your skull cured headaches. (Why are we taking this guy's advice again?). He didn't know half of what we do about biology, he could've seen an Elk in the dark and mistaken it for something else. Better still, we don't even know the guy. According to him, some parts of his story were told to him BY a deer. For all we know, this guy could've been schizophrenic, or just some jackass trying to get gullible hunters to go look for deer. All in all, he's not a very reliable source.

Are you still going to be looking for these little bastards? Have fun, I think I'm just going to go hunt an elk instead, we've all seen those. Maybe the deer is out there, but at this point it sounds like a wild goose chase. At this point I would definitely say it is more likely that there is no deer.
_____________________________

If I came off like an asshole here, sorry, I do that alot.

[Robbo]

I apologize again for my lack of input but i didn't want to go into detail and get it wrong but now i have found my college documents and i will completely outline the 3 ways.

The Argument From Motion

According to Aquinas, since there exists a series of things able to cause movement, there needs a first mover responsible for the start of this process of movement. Without this first mover, there would be no subsequent movers, and therefore, the universe would not exist today.
This first mover must also be seen as an unmoved mover.It cannot be open to change or be caused to change by anything else. It HAS to be the very start of the chain of movement. For Aquinas, this mover is God. Aquinas had said" It is certain, and evident to our sense,that,in the world,some things are in motion. Whatever is moved is moved by another(e.g a man moving a glass across a table)... but this cannot go on to infinity,because this would mean that there would be no first mover, and consequently,no other mover.Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover,put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Argument From Cause

Most things require a cause such as a ball being kicked or a light switch being turned on. According to Aquinas, the universe could not have caused itself and the chain of cause and effect cant be infinite. He surmised that there had to be an ultimate cause. He further deduced that since things can't cause themselves, then the cause of the universe must be external to it and he believed this cause was God. Aquinas had said " There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. It is not possible to go intermediate, and the intermediate the cause of the ultimate... Therefore, it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God."

The Argument from Contingency/Necessity

This is the most complex of the three ways, bur also the most persuasive according to some. Everything exists contingently( in other words, everything has the possibility of not existing) and everything will cease to exist at some point in time. If everything is contingent, then there must've been a time when none of these things existed. Something must have caused things to come into existence and according to Aquinas; this "thing" is God. However God can't be contingent otherwise he Would need something to being about His existence. God must therefore be a Necessary being, i.e incapable of not existing and Dependant on nothing. Aquinas claimed that without a necessary being there would be nothing at all. Aquinas had said that " We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be. If at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist, and even now nothing would be in in existence. There must be some being having of itself its own necessity and receiving it from another, but rather causing in other their necessity. This all men speak of as God."


EDIT: Brother was being a pain and wanted to go on computer. Also these are just the facts i was given along with a few lectures and two sheets of quotes, that i will include as the thread develops

[fragdemon]

To be clear: I'm an atheist.

What I'm not advocating here is belief in God, I'm advocating something along the lines of clear thinking about the issue. That means thinking a step back from your ideological commitments. Now, like I said I was a theology major so I learned quite a bit about the commitments that entangles the thinking of folks like Aquinas. But I think studying it, and studying it from the view of an outsider looking in, also gave me the ability to study the ideological commitments underlying my own thinking.

I think it's our duty as responsible philosophers to be able to step back from our commitments in any direction. We live in the 21st century and to argue with some primacy of reason is going to get you stuck in an 18th-19th century philosophy.


For example, in a lot of the arguments I see above on all sides, we are taking for granted that we all experience the same things at the same level. It could be that all of the Pentacostals who strike me as hilarious actually get some extra senses (hell, it seems they think so).

Now, my philosophical commitment is in line with all of the folks that are holding that to be true. I like to believe that if something can be experienced by one person, it should be able to be experienced by someone else. This is a commitment I CHOOSE because there's no real point in living communally, learning from others, or teaching to others otherwise. All of those are activities I find value in, so for ideological reasons, I choose to believe and reason from the premise that knowledge available to me is available to all and that knowledge not available to me is not available to anybody.

But that's wishful thinking.

I suspect also that we are both empiricists. Again, not something that can be proved, but only something that is decided upon: That there is a world we all share that can be argued over, investigated into as a group (I hope to be a researcher after all). Again, that is wishful thinking.

When something is straight up wrong, being put in pain by the proof that it is wrong does not change the fact that it is wrong.

So you're talking about some kind of proof of anything independent of senses here?

If so, I can't wait to encounter it. But I probably won't ever. Sure it's great though.

Or are you talking about proof that has nothing to do with pain...

We have prioritized one empirical sense over another for a very simple reason. One is relevant to the conclusion, the other is not. In fact it is a fallacy of relevance known as wishful thinking. Yes, people have a right to believe what they want. If you want to believe in God, wonderful, do so

Relevance being?

Why exactly is sight more important to the experience of a certain fact than touch or hearing?

Different concepts ally themselves to different senses as modes of inquiry. For example, much of what we know about energy emerged from scientists thinking about heat. Heat is not something you could see, it is something you viscerally experience. So a lot of our conceptions (and misconceptions, to be fair) were built not around sight, but around touch.

Now, suppose I tell you that I am sad. By any sense besides an internal sense, there really is no way of knowing that I am sad.

So when I say: "Listen, the way you were being so aggressive in your last post hurt my feelings just now and now I'm sad."

Could you challenge it as wrong? If you told me: "Sorry, pal, I cannot see your sadness. Wishful thinking." I'd be quite perplexed

Being wrong is universal.

Again, I am inclined to agree with you, but not because of any logical proof.

It's a bit of wishful thinking that we share.

Not one of us has ever seen it's track. Some of us have claimed to, but none can prove it.

Their seeing is their proof.

Standards of proof vary wildly from discipline to discipline.

My proof that I love my girlfriend is that I feel it is probably scientifically weaker than people's proof that God exists. At least a bunch of people feel in their heart that God exists. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one who can feel how much love I have for my girlfriend.

Here's something more interesting:
We cannot scientifically prove that Ben Franklin existed. Scientific proof is either observational or experimental, Ben Franklin is neither. A theory of Ben Franklin's existence is unfalsifiable, so it would fail Popper's criterion (until we develop a time machine). His bones, his documents, and tons of paper pointing to his existence scientifically suggest his existence, but it doesn't prove it.

We can historically prove that Ben Franklin existed. Historical proof depends on what historiographers call "convergence of evidence" (or, at least what the guy who was teaching me historiography taught me)

Philosophers once had their own standards of proof based on logic. Unfortunately, what they found out (and what is being hit at again and again on this thread) that logical proofs are just math problems. It seems there are so many philosophical commitments underlying just about everything we could believe

And so on and so forth...

None of us can prove through any form of deductive logic that deer exist.

Umm... let's step back from your analogy here and try and take this literally.

Can we prove that actual deer exist deductively?

When you've done that, then we can bring that back to the analogy.

Until then, we have to be aware that empirical experience is all we have for finding deer. And apparently there are loads of people out there who have seen the deer; loads of people who feel some sort of god whether they are Pentecostals speaking tongues, mystics, a common believer in church going through the intense experience of prayer, an artist feeling his hand move beyond his own control, etc.

Hell, I'm an atheist, but sometimes when I'm out alone in nature, when I'm singing as part of a big choir, when I s I start to feel like maybe there's something...

I dismiss it. Isolated experiences shouldn't be allowed to override the rest of my experience, right?

... wishful thinking...

[Heartless Angel]

What I'm not advocating here is belief in God, I'm advocating something along the lines of clear thinking about the issue. That means thinking a step back from your ideological commitments. Now, like I said I was a theology major so I learned quite a bit about the commitments that entangles the thinking of folks like Aquinas. But I think studying it, and studying it from the view of an outsider looking in, also gave me the ability to study the ideological commitments underlying my own thinking.

I think it's our duty as responsible philosophers to be able to step back from our commitments in any direction. We live in the 21st century and to argue with some primacy of reason is going to get you stuck in an 18th-19th century philosophy.

I don't disagree at all there, again, I do not refute the possibility of the unknown or unexplained, but I will not accept it as fact, or what is most likely until it is no longer unknown or unproven. I'm perfectly willing to hear arguments in favor of God. If they fail to prove God, or provide a strong enough inductive argument to make me believe it is more likely he exists than not, I will not believe in it. The day somebody can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt, I'll be the first one to pull my fingers out of my ears and go say I'm wrong. Until that happens, I'll stick with athiesm.


To be clear, I was reffering to the fallacy of relevance known as wishful thinking, which is to attempt to use what you would really like to be true as evidence that it IS true. Togo back to your fememnist example, The mention of things that conlict with that view make you sick, therefore that view is correct. That is a logical fallacy, the premise has no affect on the conclusion whatsoever. Making assumptions or wanting to believe something is not the fallacy of wishful thinking unless you attempt to use it as a premise in an argument.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant when you asked why we were prioritizing one sense over another. It sounded like you were trying to say that your stomache ache which showed only what you WANT to be true is of equal importance to observing a fact which supports a conclusion. In this case, the two are not equal, as one is describing what you want to be true, which is the fallacy of wishful thinking and therefore irellevant, and the other is relevant observable fact. If that's not what you meant, my bad, I tend to skim at 2 AM, and ocassionally the train of thought derails at this hour as well.

Now, suppose I tell you that I am sad. By any sense besides an internal sense, there really is no way of knowing that I am sad.

So when I say: "Listen, the way you were being so aggressive in your last post hurt my feelings just now and now I'm sad."

Could you challenge it as wrong? If you told me: "Sorry, pal, I cannot see your sadness. Wishful thinking." I'd be quite perplexed

Nope, that's not the fallacy of wishful thinking. If you were to say that my post was WRONG because it made you sad, that would be the fallacy of wishful thinking. (on that note, apologies if you actually were offended, I'm usually an even bigger ass at this time of night) Much like a religious person saying "because I want to believe in God really bad, God must exist" is the fallacy of wishful thinking. "The bible says God exists in spite of any anti-God argument, I want to trust the bible, therefore God exists". THAT is the fallacy of wishful thinking. So to clarify what I meant in my attack on blind faith, faith based on what you want to trust, or what you want to beleive, or what you want to be true does not in any way prove that what you put your faith in is true.

Their seeing is their proof.

Their seeing is why they as an individual believe. If they are the only one who can see it, and anyone else can go look at the same spot on the ground and do NOT se the track, it has not proven the deer exists. If I told you I saw an alien in your back yard, and you went and looked and saw nothing, everyone you know looked and saw nothing, but I absolutely insisted I could see it right ther right now, would you say I have proven the alien's existance? Or would you call the nearest asylum and ask them if they came up one short in their last head count? I may very well have jsutified my belief in the alien; however, I have not proven its existence.

We cannot scientifically prove that Ben Franklin existed. Scientific proof is either observational or experimental, Ben Franklin is neither. A theory of Ben Franklin's existence is unfalsifiable, so it would fail Popper's criterion (until we develop a time machine). His bones, his documents, and tons of paper pointing to his existence scientifically suggest his existence, but it doesn't prove it.

Correct, you can't deductively prove it. Thsi is where we get into an inductive argument. Based on the evidence, it is siginificantly more likely that he existed than not. I don't believe we'll ever have a real deuctive argument to prove or disprovea divine being, at least not until we as a species are a hell of alot smarter than we are now. What we CAN do is pose inductive arguments. Based on all relevent evidence, it seems to me, more likely that God does not exist. Again, this does not prove it, to say it did would be committing the fallacy of wishful thinking. SOmething like BF's existence has so much supporting evidence, you'd almost have to be an idiot to take the bet that he didn't exist. With something like God, when I say I believe the evidence is in favor of no God, I don't mean it's an obvious choice with overwhelming evidence in favor of my view, because it isn't. If my evaluation of the evidence suggests a 50.0000000000000001% chance that god does not exist, and a 49.9999999999999999% chance he does, Inductively speaking, I have justified my belief. Someone else who interprets the evidence differently may comp to the conclusion that I got thos two numbers mixed up, in which case they have inductively justified their beliefs.

Can we prove that actual deer exist deductively?

When you've done that, then we can bring that back to the analogy.

I'll use two proofs, one for materialists and one for idealists. Dualists would be satisified with either. Ths is based on what we DEFINE existence as, as we don't actually know. We can only deductively prove things in terms of other things we assume we know.


Materialist
If something can be observed by the senses, and is made of matter -> It Exists.
I can see, smell, hear, feel, and taste a deer.
A deer is composed of various chemeical elements which we recognize as matter
_________________
Deer exist.

Idealist
If we can percieve asomething as a bundle of sensory data -> it exists.
We can percieve the appearance, scent, feeling, sound, and taste of a deer.
_________________
Deer exist.

I'm aware that these are very general proofs, and the premesis could be clarified, but this isn't a thread about that, so I won't go into tremendous detail on it.

[fragdemon]

It sounded like you were trying to say that your stomache ache which showed only what you WANT to be true is of equal importance to observing a fact which supports a conclusion.

I kind of am, I suppose.

What I am saying is that there isn't much of anything to be called a "fact" that isn't an experienced thing. I said in a bunch of ways in that last post, this was just one of them. A stomach ache is an experienced thing. To imagine that certain bits of experience, like the computer that sits in front of me, is somehow more valid than other bits of experience isn't something that we know to be true, it is something that we WANT to be true.

Also, you're mixing up the order:

Most people do not want something and then losing their wants makes them uneasy. Most people when it comes to moral things are made uneasy and from that uneasiness comes moral opinion. This is why sociologically the more common a behavior or belief becomes (hence: the more people who are made queasy by it are forced to become used to it) the less moral outrage comes from it.

I didn't become much of anything for a dispassionate reason. People describe curiosity as "burning," and really these mental inclinations.

SOmething like BF's existence has so much supporting evidence, you'd almost have to be an idiot to take the bet that he didn't exist.

Or you'd have to be sticking to a scientific paradigm. Which you might want to for certain reasons.

Anyways, standards of proof can go into its own discussion. To turn it back towards the issue.

Ths is based on what we DEFINE existence as, as we don't actually know. We can only deductively prove things in terms of other things we assume we know.

... which is what Aquinas was doing, no?

In fact, if we go by what we assume we should know, then Aquinas would have a more convincing argument than Kant's challenges to him. I have not experienced in my existence a single thing without a cause. So mebbe I should know something about causality and how everything needs it and mebbe I should trust Aquinas.

But here's the thing (and this is where we catch Aquinas too). Deduction doesn't prove the existence of the deer. Deduction proved it would be valid to believe in the deer if those premises were true. In the end, the sense experiences you talked about didn't come from deduction but came from experience. Like my stomach ache, like Teresa de Avila's experience of god.

This is where Kant flies in: Science needs to be based on interactions between sensory experience and reason. You cannot deductively carry out science. You can deductively work science, but science needs data.


It seems like you know that though from the way you stated your two proofs.

If something can be observed by the senses, and is made of matter -> It Exists.

Something CAN be, not if it is.

So this materialist premise (as you framed it) defines existence as ocurring prior to anybody encountering it. Some creator entity, as long as it's material, is as valid as your deer.

If we can percieve asomething as a bundle of sensory data -> it exists.

To quote Teresa de Avila:

"I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it."

That's more sensory data involved than most people's sexual encounters.
_____________

Now, neither of these proofs are particularly satisfying, but they aren't satisfying for reasons that probably resonate more with Aquinas than we want to:

Evidence should be convincing all around. (which is why maybe you want to stay out of material observation at all)

Evidence should be in accord with the rest of our experience (like say, causality and the idea that causality has to come in a chain)

Evidence should MAKE SENSE! Damn, do I believe that. (but damn if that isn't what Aquinas was appealing to)

[Heartless Angel]

I kind of am, I suppose.

What I am saying is that there isn't much of anything to be called a "fact" that isn't an experienced thing. I said in a bunch of ways in that last post, this was just one of them. A stomach ache is an experienced thing.

Then this is the fallacy of wishful thinking. The fact that an idea makes you uneasy as a premise has absolutely no effect on the conclusion of a factual argument, and is therefore irellevant to the argument. To use another analogy, think of a courtroom. If you are testifying as a witness, and you say you saw the suspect commit the crime, this is treated as evidence. If you got up oin the stand and said that he made you uneasy, or that when you listened to his defense, you developed a stomahce ache, no reasonable jury would give a crap, because it isn't relevant to the conclusion the man is guilty. Just because we can percieve something, doesn't nescessarily make it relevant.

... which is what Aquinas was doing, no?

Sort of, but not really. His argument was more trying to define existence, causality, and the universe in terms of God, not the other way around. Though he poses a relatively good argument, ultimately he relies on the existence of God existing to prove god exists. That's like trying to use a word in its own definition. Again, most metaphysical arguments do this to some extent, which is why we say most of them fail to PROVE anything.

In fact, if we go by what we assume we should know, then Aquinas would have a more convincing argument than Kant's challenges to him. I have not experienced in my existence a single thing without a cause. So mebbe I should know something about causality and how everything needs it and mebbe I should trust Aquinas.

Except for the fact that right after saying everything needed a cause, he created an exception to the rule of logic he was attempting to establish by saying God did not. A major part of his premises were that God did not have to follow any form of logic, but that everything else did. This is not fact, this is not provable in itself, and can't prove another conclusion until it is proven itself.

But here's the thing (and this is where we catch Aquinas too). Deduction doesn't prove the existence of the deer. Deduction proved it would be valid to believe in the deer if those premises were true. In the end, the sense experiences you talked about didn't come from deduction but came from experience. Like my stomach ache, like Teresa de Avila's experience of god.

It proves it in terms of what we consider to be existence. Aquinas' argument created a seperate dimension outside of existence, that need not follow the rules of existence, but then tries to say things that fall into this category INSTEAD of our definition of existence, still exist.

This is where Kant flies in: Science needs to be based on interactions between sensory experience and reason. You cannot deductively carry out science. You can deductively work science, but science needs data.


It seems like you know that though from the way you stated your two proofs.


Something CAN be, not if it is.

So this materialist premise (as you framed it) defines existence as ocurring prior to anybody encountering it. Some creator entity, as long as it's material, is as valid as your deer.

Yes, according to my proof, IF and only if it can be seen (I certainly can't see it, nor do I know anyone who can), heard (I spent years of my younger life asking God to tell me he existed while I was struggling with my beliefs, never heard a word), smelled (I couldn't even hazard a guess as to what God smells like. Even the bible never mentions being able to percieve him through this sense), tasted (same argument for smell), and felt. Feeling could be a bit arbitrary, we could be talking about feeling his presence, literally reaching out and touching him, feeling something he definitely caused... any number of things, but i haven't experienced any of the above. Yes, if he fit these definitions, I would have to say he exists, however he does not.

To quote Teresa de Avila:

"I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it."

That's more sensory data involved than most people's sexual encounters.

However, it was experienced by one and only one person. If I reach out and touchh a deer, and you reach out and touch the same deer, you and I would both be able to say we felt the deer. This argument however is also not perfect, because it fails to explain existence in terms of blindness or deafness, or other sensory impairment. If I can say it exists even though a blind man can't see it, I'd have to be open to the possibiility that the majority of humanity was in some way impaired in the sense that some apparently use to detect God. This is where we have to make a distinction that may or may not be correct and say that the senses an average person has are teh only ones that matter in terms of defining reality. This may or may not be correct. Once more I have to agree with Jin, logic and metaphyics don't mix well.