patrick.net

I don't know if they have Thomisms on you tube, you might want to check them out. Of course that would require that you consider something different.

indigenous says

I don't know if they have Thomisms on you tube, you might want to check them out. Of course that would require that you consider something different.

I consider everything and then I reject most things because they are bullshit.

Feel free to present me with any "Thomism" you like. I'll let you know what I think of it and, more importantly, why.

Skeptics demand to be convinced by reasoning and evidence whereas the religious refuse to be convinced by reasoning and evidence. Skepticism is good; religion is bad.

Dan8267 says

I consider everything and then I reject most things because they are bullshit.

I have seen no evidence of that...

Dan8267 says

Feel free to present me with any "Thomism" you like. I'll let you know what I think of it and, more importantly, why.

Look up yourself

Dan8267 says

Skeptics demand to be convinced by reasoning and evidence whereas the religious refuse to be convinced by reasoning and evidence. Skepticism is good; religion is bad.

Thomisms are derived purely from logic

You must not think too highly of yourself.
I charge for presentations.
Dan8267 says

Feel free to present me with any "Thomism" you like.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

I consider everything and then I reject most things because they are bullshit.

I have seen no evidence of that...

You just choose to ignore the evidence. See below.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

Feel free to present me with any "Thomism" you like. I'll let you know what I think of it and, more importantly, why.

Look up yourself

So, I give you the chance to make your point and demonstrate a great willingness to give you the opportunity to present a sound, rational case. And then you go shit on your own idea.

Neither I, nor anyone else but you, can pick the "Thomism" you like and you think it is important or why. If I pick some random example and show it to be crap, you'll accuse me of cherry-picking the weakest example.

Don't blame me if your too damn lazy to advocate your beliefs. That doesn't speak well of your beliefs.

Dan8267 says

I consider everything and then I reject most things because they are bullshit.

You just insist on going to hell, don't you?

sbh says

Hell is a meaningless concept.

I image hell as an eternity of reading Strategist's posts.

Here ya go, not that you will read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

Dan8267 says

sbh says

Hell is a meaningless concept.

I image hell as an eternity of reading Strategist's posts.

This is the thanks I get for doing someone a favor.

indigenous says

Here ya go, not that you will read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

Like most atheists I am far more aware of the details of my former religion than its current disciples are. That's not what I asked for. What I asked for was which Thomisms "derived purely from logic" that you consider to be a correct a priori proof of the supernatural, anything supernatural.

Sure, I could go over Thomas Aquinas's more famous "proofs" and show their flaws. I did this in high school. I could also go over Thomas Aquinas's repugnant moral beliefs such as that homosexuality runs "counter to nature" and how the basis for his beliefs are factually incorrect. But again, doing so would be a waste of time until you have the balls to come down and say, "I believe this particular tenant is correct and proved by a priori logic.". Do that and it's game over man.

For example, ... As you know, I believe in math. Here's a mathematical tenet I believe is true and has been proved: the square root of two is an irrational number. Try to prove that one incorrect. Then give me an equivalent proof from Aquinas that you consider to be correct.

sbh says

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

sbh says

Hell is a meaningless concept.

I image hell as an eternity of reading Strategist's posts.

This is the thanks I get for doing someone a favor.

Maybe someone will do their laundry for you.

A simple -- "Thanks for enlightening us, Strategist" would be enough.

Dan8267 says

Thomas Aquinas's repugnant moral beliefs such as that homosexuality runs "counter to nature" and how the basis for his beliefs are factually incorrect

...or that rape is less bad than masturbation. Since rape is an act propelled by sin against another person, whereas masturbation is directly against god.
http://newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article7

Dan8267 says

Like most atheists I am far more aware of the details of my former religion than its current disciples are. That's not what I asked for. What I asked for was which Thomisms "derived purely from logic" that you consider to be a correct a priori proof of the supernatural, anything supernatural.

Bullshit you did not even read it.

It is laid out very elegantly in the Thomisms, better stated than I could do.

You are hiding behind a posteriori logic, which is the point, ironic that you avoid the a priori.

thunderlips11 says

...or that rape is less bad than masturbation. Since rape is an act propelled by sin against another person, whereas masturbation is directly against god.

That is not a Thomism. I'm not talking about religion at all. Just the existence of God and that there is only one God.

indigenous says

Bullshit you did not even read it.

Yes, I read the stupid Wikipedia page, which by the way sucks like most Wikipedia pages. It's like the Cliff Notes of Aquinas. And I've been familiar with Thomas Aquinas's writings since high school; I went to a Christian school.

What I asked you for, several times, is one specific "proof" by Aquinas on any supernatural subject such as the existence of God or that Jesus rose from the dead. The Wikipedia page does not provide one complete, specific attempted proof. And even if it did, how could I tell that you agree with that specific proof? Are you claiming to believe in EVERYTHING that Aquinas wrote? Do you believe that masturbation is far worse than rape?

Oh, from the post directly above, I guess not. That's why I'm not going to make your argument for you. You're just pussying out of the challenge.

From the Wiki, that you did not read.

Causality[edit]
Aristotle categorized causality into four subsets in the Metaphysics, which is an integral part of Thomism:
"In one sense the term cause means (a) that from which, as something intrinsic, a thing comes to be, as the bronze of a statue and the silver of a goblet, and the genera of these. In another sense it means (b) the form and pattern of a thing, i.e., the intelligible expression of the quiddity and its genera (for example, the ratio of 2: 1 and number in general are the cause of an octave chord) and the parts which are included in the intelligible expression. Again, (c) that from which the first beginning of change or of rest comes is a cause; for example, an adviser is a cause, and a father is the cause of a child, and in general a maker is a cause of the thing made, and a changer a cause of the thing changed. Further, a thing is a cause (d) inasmuch as it is an end, i.e., that for the sake of which something is done; for example, health is the cause of walking. For if we are asked why someone took a walk, we answer, "in order to be healthy"; and in saying this we think we have given the cause. And whatever occurs on the way to the end under the motion of something else is also a cause. For example, reducing, purging, drugs and instruments are causes of health; for all of these exist for the sake of the end, although they differ from each other inasmuch as some are instruments and others are processes."
—Metaphysics 1013a, trans. John P. Rowan, Chicago, 1961
(a) refers to the material cause, what a being's matter consists of (if applicable).
(b) refers to the formal cause, what a being's essence is.
(c) refers to the efficient cause, what brings about the beginning of, or change to, a being.
(d) refers to the final cause, what a being's purpose is.
Unlike many ancient Greeks, who thought that an infinite regress of causality is possible (and thus held that the universe is uncaused), Thomas argues that an infinite chain never accomplishes its objective and is thus impossible.[24] Hence, a first cause is necessary for the existence of anything to be possible. Further, the First Cause must continuously be in action (similar to how there must always be a first chain in a chain link), otherwise the series collapses:[25]
The Philosopher says (Metaph. ii, 2) that "to suppose a thing to be indefinite is to deny that it is good." But the good is that which has the nature of an end. Therefore it is contrary to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is necessary to fix one last end.
—Summa, II-I, Q.1, art.4.
Thus, both Aristotle and Thomas conclude that there must be an uncaused Primary Mover,[24][26][27][28] because an infinite regress is impossible.[29]

Didn't Aquinas provide the definitive demonstration of the infallibility of Says' Law?

HydroCabron says

Didn't Aquinas provide the definitive demonstration of the infallibility of Says' Law?

No that would be Krugman, who encourages Abenomics for the last 20 years, without even a modicum of improvement. Proving that the economy is not consumer driven, therefore prima facie and a priori is producer driven.

indigenous says

Aristotle categorized causality into four subsets in the Metaphysics, which is an integral part of Thomism:

And you think that is an a priori proof? Hardly. But I'll tackle it anyway.

The conclusion is "[T]here must be an uncaused Primary Mover, because an infinite regress is impossible.".

1. This argument assume finite, bounded time. If time is infinite, there can be no first agent. If time is finite but bounded, as is believed in modern physics, then infinite regression is avoided without a first agent.

2. The first agent does not have to be a sentient being. The universe itself could be the first agent. The Big Bang could be the first agent.

3. The first agent does not have to be moral. Satan could be the first agent just as easily as the Christian god.

4. This conclusion also assumes linear, one-dimensional time. If time is bendable, as stated by The General Theory of Relativity, all bets are off, particularly at the Big Bang. If time is twistable, as modeled by Calabi-Yau spaces in Quantum Mechanics, then again, all bets are off. The very concept of causality as colloquially defined assumes the colloquial view of space and time, which is only accurate when applied to the particularly comfortable environment we evolved in. It does not reflect the entire universe, particularly its beginnings.

5. As I've already had to call in scientific facts to address this issue, clearly there can be no correct priori proof of the statement, "there must be an uncaused Primary Mover" as the physical nature of time and space are relevant to this question.

6. Nor does the Wikipedia article even attempt to construct an a priori proof of that statement. It just gives a vague argument in support of it. That's hardly a logical proof, nonetheless a priori logic.

7. Even if we assume a sentient, first agent, there is no reason to believe that agent is the Christian god. Nor is there any reason to believe that agent is supernatural in any way, shape, or form. Sure, you could call it a god -- you can call anything a god -- but it would still be bounded by all the laws of nature and could not contradict or alter them.

8. There is no reason to believe that a first agent would have any power or decision making capabilities.

9. Regarding "similar to how there must always be a first chain in a chain link"… A chain does not have to have a first link. A chain can be circular. A tree can be unrooted and any node can be considered the root. A graph can have cycles and no beginning or end.

10. Regarding "Therefore it is contrary to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is necessary to fix one last end."… It was discovered in 1998 that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Time would extend infinitely in the direction of the future. This observed fact contradicts the above statement. When a hypothesis is contradicted by observation, the hypothesis is wrong.

And that's just off the top of my head. Do you really think a Medieval philosopher could hold a candle to modern science? If this is the best you got, it's pretty damn sad.

Dan8267 says

1. This argument assume finite, bounded time. If time is infinite, there can be no first agent. If time is finite but bounded, as is believed in modern physics, then infinite regression is avoided without a first agent.

Without the universe there would be no time. Your assumption is incorrect.

Dan8267 says

2. The first agent does not have to be a sentient being. The universe itself could be the first agent. The Big Bang could be the first agent.

Not according to Aristotle.

Dan8267 says

3. The first agent does not have to be moral. Satan could be the first agent just as easily as the Christian god.

If something is fully actualized then good or bad is irrelevant, it just is.

Dan8267 says

4. This conclusion also assumes linear, one-dimensional time. If time is bendable, as stated by The General Theory of Relativity, all bets are off, particularly at the Big Bang. If time is twistable, as modeled by Calabi-Yau spaces in Quantum Mechanics, then again, all bets are off. The very concept of causality as colloquially defined assumes the colloquial view of space and time, which is only accurate when applied to the particularly comfortable environment we evolved in. It does not reflect the entire universe, particularly its beginnings.

Again time does not exist without the universe.

Dan8267 says

5. As I've already had to call in scientific facts to address this issue, clearly there can be no correct priori proof of the statement, "there must be an uncaused Primary Mover" as the physical nature of time and space are relevant to this question.

A posteriori works great with the hard sciences, since we are talking about God, it is useless. There fore the only methodology that is relevant is a priori.

Dan8267 says

7. Even if we assume a sentient, first agent, there is no reason to believe that agent is the Christian god. Nor is there any reason to believe that agent is supernatural in any way, shape, or form. Sure, you could call it a god -- you can call anything a god -- but it would still be bounded by all the laws of nature and could not contradict or alter them.

Sactly, in a nutshell God is not bounded by "nature". God is fully actualized therefore has no distinguishing features. And further there is only one, as if there were distinguishing features there would be more than one God, and it would not be actualized.

Dan8267 says

8. There is no reason to believe that a first agent would have any power or decision making capabilities.

According to Aristotle by definition he does.

Dan8267 says

9. Regarding "similar to how there must always be a first chain in a chain link"… A chain does not have to have a first link. A chain can be circular. A tree can be unrooted and any node can be considered the root. A graph can have cycles and no beginning or end.

Again only in the context of the universe, which is irrelevant.

Dan8267 says

10. Regarding "Therefore it is contrary to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is necessary to fix one last end."… It was discovered in 1998 that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Time would extend infinitely in the direction of the future. This observed fact contradicts the above statement. When a hypothesis is contradicted by observation, the hypothesis is wrong.

You just don't get it at all... The nuns must have hit your knuckles with a ruler often?

Dan8267 says

And that's just off the top of my head. Do you really think a Medieval philosopher could hold a candle to modern science? If this is the best you got, it's pretty damn sad.

Because of a priori logic. Corollary how do you think the "modern scientists" can hold a candle to Aquinas and Aristotle? Sad indeed...

You will no doubt come back with some verbal diarrhea, I don't have time right now to learn you any more stuff.

indigenous says

Corollary how do you think the "modern scientists" can hold a candle to Aquinas and Aristotle?

Quite nicely indeed.

bob2356 says

Quite nicely indeed.

Not regarding God or economics.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

1. This argument assume finite, bounded time. If time is infinite, there can be no first agent. If time is finite but bounded, as is believed in modern physics, then infinite regression is avoided without a first agent.

Without the universe there would be no time. Your assumption is incorrect.

I'm not making an assumption here. I'm refuting one based on modern science. You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

2. The first agent does not have to be a sentient being. The universe itself could be the first agent. The Big Bang could be the first agent.

Not according to Aristotle.

Appeal to authority means nothing. Aristotle was completely wrong about the sun revolving around the Earth and the Earth being the center of the universe.

I would even argue that hero worship of Aristotle held back Western philosophy and science by 1500 years.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

3. The first agent does not have to be moral. Satan could be the first agent just as easily as the Christian god.

If something is fully actualized then good or bad is irrelevant, it just is.

Your statement does not refute the fact that there is no reason to believe a "first agent" is anything remotely like the false Christian god. So yes, it's highly relevant to the point Aquinas was attempting to make: that his god exists. It's also relevant to the challenge you were given to prove that something supernatural exists using a priori logic.

indigenous says

Again time does not exist without the universe.

Again irrelevant. The fact that we're talking about the physical existence of time and how the universe operates completely contradicts that there is anything a priori about Aquinas's argument. See my example of the square root of two as an a priori proof. It requires no knowledge of the universe or physical facts.

You can keep trying to use tricky wording, but you've painted yourself into a corner. The only face-saving move here is to admit you were wrong and move on.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

5. As I've already had to call in scientific facts to address this issue, clearly there can be no correct priori proof of the statement, "there must be an uncaused Primary Mover" as the physical nature of time and space are relevant to this question.

A posteriori works great with the hard sciences, since we are talking about God, it is useless. There fore the only methodology that is relevant is a priori.

Hence my point that the Aquinas argument you gave as an example is not an a priori argument. It is very a posteriori as it is built upon observations and perceptions of time.

Again, those reading comprehension skills would come in useful right about now.

indigenous says

Sactly, in a nutshell God is not bounded by "nature".

There is nothing that you or Aquinas has said that would cause any rational person to believe the above statement. Even if we accepted the existence of a "first agent", which so far there is no valid reason to do so, there certainly is no reason to believe that such an agent is supernatural. You are injecting an unfounded assertion on top of another unfounded assertion.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

8. There is no reason to believe that a first agent would have any power or decision making capabilities.

According to Aristotle by definition he does.

Again, appeal to authority means nothing.

Second, the definition of "first agent" most certainly is not synonymous to "sentient first agent". One can easily speak of a "non-sentient first agent". Ergo, sentience and decision making ability are not part of the definition of "first agent".

You can't just throw "by definition" onto any argument. It must actually fit. For example, a car is by definition a vehicle. A car is no, however, by definition black, no matter what Henry Ford might have thought.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

9. Regarding "similar to how there must always be a first chain in a chain link"… A chain does not have to have a first link. A chain can be circular. A tree can be unrooted and any node can be considered the root. A graph can have cycles and no beginning or end.

Again only in the context of the universe, which is irrelevant.

Wrong. Aquinas made the incorrect statement that a chain must have a beginning and an end. This is clearly not true as structures can be circular. Ergo, any statement he bases upon this assumption is also invalidated.

In particular arguments involving linear causality assume a linear, one-dimensional physical implementation of time, which although is perfectly fine for the nice ecosystem in which we evolved, does not apply the extremes of the universe including its beginning.

In short, nature is under no obligation to conform to the very narrow perception of reality that we human beings, through the process of evolution under very particular circumstances, have come to intuitively expect. For example, time dilation is a very real and important phenonium, critical to the operation of GPS navigation, yet utterly counter-intuitive and nonsensical to our instinct about how the universe works. And if you think that's bad, just wait until you get into Quantum Mechanics which looks utterly insane to our common sense worldviews.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

10. Regarding "Therefore it is contrary to the nature of an end to proceed indefinitely. Therefore it is necessary to fix one last end."… It was discovered in 1998 that the universe's expansion is accelerating. Time would extend infinitely in the direction of the future. This observed fact contradicts the above statement. When a hypothesis is contradicted by observation, the hypothesis is wrong.

You just don't get it at all... The nuns must have hit your knuckles with a ruler often?

A juvenile personal attack is no counter-argument to a rational argument based on scientific fact. It does, however, indicate just how weak your position is.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

And that's just off the top of my head. Do you really think a Medieval philosopher could hold a candle to modern science? If this is the best you got, it's pretty damn sad.

Because of a priori logic.

It is true that a sound a priori argument, in mathematics or metaphysics, is valid regardless of when it was proposed or by whom. However, the example you picked is neither a priori nor correct. It is incorrect both in fact and logic.

An example of an ancient a priori argument that is indisputable, then and now, is

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

- Epicurus quotes (Greek philosopher, BC 341-270)

Atheists, winning since the third century B.C.E.

indigenous says

Corollary how do you think the "modern scientists" can hold a candle to Aquinas and Aristotle?

Because mathematics is a billion times more advanced now involving concepts and precision unimaginable to Aquinas and Aristotle. And because science didn't even exist in their time, and it got us to the moon before I was even born.

indigenous says

You will no doubt come back with some verbal diarrhea, I don't have time right now to learn you any more stuff.

Translation: I know I lost this argument, so I'm switching to this strategy…

Honey, every argument I make is done so in the clearest manner possible. The Aquinas quotes on the Wikipedia page are verbal diarrhea written to confuse and obfuscate to the point where the opposition concedes just because he can't understand what is being said. That strategy might have worked in the 13th century when everyone was illiterate. It does not work today.

By the way, if you actually held the convictions of your alleged beliefs, you would welcome sincere challenges to them, as every rational person does. Clearly, you do not. In contrast, the natural, scientific world view has been upheld in every single challenge ever made to it, and those challenges were (literally) astronomically greater than any challenge ever posed to religion, legal courts, or philosophies.

bob2356 says

indigenous says

Corollary how do you think the "modern scientists" can hold a candle to Aquinas and Aristotle?

Quite nicely indeed.

Just because a statement supports your socio-political agendas, does not make the statement correct or profound.