Reasoning faith

[bob x]

all five are based on empirical observation, and the observation argues against the idea of infinite sequences

??? There is no "observation" which COULD "argue" either for or against the possibility of an infinite number of other things to observe. The Aquinas premise is that an infinite sequence is impossible is the direct opposite of "empirical": a philosophical assumption based on nothing but his personal difficulties with the concept of infinity.
Only the last of his five could be considered empirically based at all. His premise that "all natural things act towards ends" turns out, on further observation, to be false. Lightning does not actually strike with the intention of killing particular bad people or damaging particular structures that offend God: it follows paths of least resistance irrespective of the end, and this is true of nature in general. All that can be said is that humans have a natural tendency to impute "ends" to the activities of nature, modelling whatever we do not understand in terms of ourselves and what we can most easily understand.

they are sound arguments, based on empirical data.

They are fallacies based in the natural failings of untutored minds.

[Thomas]

Hi BobX

Originally Posted by bob x

??? There is no "observation" which COULD "argue" either for or against the possibility of an infinite number of other things to observe.

So does your argument depend on reasoned faith then?

Originally Posted by bob x

The Aquinas premise is that an infinite sequence is impossible is the direct opposite of "empirical": a philosophical assumption based on nothing but his personal difficulties with the concept of infinity.

Not really. The impossibility of a finite series is a philosophical argument based on the lack of evidence, whereas the argument for the finite is based on empirical data and observation.

Originally Posted by bob x

Only the last of his five could be considered empirically based at all.

Arg1 is based on the observation of movement;
Arg2 is based on the observation of cause and effect;
Arg3 is based on the observation of contingent existence.
These are empirical observations.

In philosophy, all five are considered cosmological arguments, but some distinguish 1-3 as cosmological, 4 and 5 being ontological.

Originally Posted by bob x

His premise that "all natural things act towards ends" turns out, on further observation, to be false.

Really?

Originally Posted by bob x

Lightning does not actually strike with the intention of killing particular bad people or damaging particular structures that offend God: it follows paths of least resistance irrespective of the end, and this is true of nature in general.

False premise: the 'end' that lightning seeks is not damage to people or structures, is it? Lightning acts towards an end — the earthing of an electrostatic charge.

Originally Posted by bob x

All that can be said is that humans have a natural tendency to impute "ends" to the activities of nature, modelling whatever we do not understand in terms of ourselves and what we can most easily understand.

Yes, but that in itself is not proof of anything, except the rational nature of the creature.

Originally Posted by bob x

They are fallacies based in the natural failings of untutored minds.

Utter nonsense.

Are you saying that every tutored mind must therefore be athiest or agnostic?

Thomas

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by bob x

??? There is no "observation" which COULD "argue" either for or against the possibility of an infinite number of other things to observe. The Aquinas premise is that an infinite sequence is impossible is the direct opposite of "empirical": a philosophical assumption based on nothing but his personal difficulties with the concept of infinity.

Actually... physically... you can nail 'infinity'. Only nothing is infinite. You can nail it on the very premise of "emperical" which makes the assumption that an experiment performed in one time and place might be the same as an experiment performed in another time and place. Science discovers gravity and applies it everywhere without testing it everywhere, at every moment. With the finding of discrete particles at the bottom, and maybe thermodynamics to nail infinite existance, Voila... (huge paper to write)... either space has some form of repeating pattern of matter or it is not infinite because for any given density of particles there is a finite permutation of them. And there are limits on density. That is a tough nut for a mathematician to swallow. Infinite is an extreme that physically does not exist. Good for the imagination, nothing else... because only nothing is infinite.

Here is a quiz for a mathemagician. With a very large but finite number of particles in Earth, and on Earth, what is the largest number that can be locally written with Earth? Is it infinite?

Originally Posted by bob x

Only the last of his five could be considered empirically based at all. His premise that "all natural things act towards ends" turns out, on further observation, to be false.

Where has thermodynamics been broken? They still teach it in school. The very nature of 'emperical' implies the fact that you can not re-test the experiment at every place and at every time. That is not physically possible... it would need infinite energy and infinite storage of entropy... everywhere. The word 'emperical' implies 'hope' or 'blind faith' that physical constants might be the same everywhere... without testing it.

Originally Posted by bob x

Lightning does not actually strike with the intention of killing particular bad people or damaging particular structures that offend God: it follows paths of least resistance irrespective of the end, and this is true of nature in general.

When you throw a light switch, what threw you?

Originally Posted by bob x

All that can be said is that humans have a natural tendency to impute "ends" to the activities of nature, modelling whatever we do not understand in terms of ourselves and what we can most easily understand.

Name one thing that will or can physically live forever.

Originally Posted by bob x

They are fallacies based in the natural failings of untutored minds.

Then, in your estimation, is there a tutored mind on this planet?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Name one thing that will or can physically live forever.

Bad choice of words, but I mean of the purely physical.

[bob x]

??? There is no "observation" which COULD "argue" either for or against the possibility of an infinite number of other things to observe.
So does your argument depend on reasoned faith then?

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

The impossibility of a finite series is a philosophical argument based on the lack of evidence

What? Perhaps you meant to say "the impossibility of an infinite series", but even so: a lack of evidence proves nothing whatsoever. At best, if you can make an argument that "if X did exist, then there would a high probability that evidence of X would be seen", then you can conclude "the lack of evidence for X makes the existence of X unlikely"; however, if there existed an infinite regression into the past, there would still be zero chance that we would actually make an infinite number of observations (given that we are finite), therefore our failure to make an infinite number of observations is not even a probabilistic argument against the likelihood or probability of an infinite regress.

Arg1 is based on the observation of movement;

AND the unjustified assumption that infinities do not exist.

Arg2 is based on the observation of cause and effect;

AND the unjustified assumption that infinities do not exist.

Arg3 is based on the observation of contingent existence.

AND the unjustified assumption that infinities do not exist. (Furthermore, his philosophical distinction between "contingent" and "necessary" types of existence is not an empirical observation, but a philosophical categorizing which may or may not have any application in the real world.)

Lightning acts towards an end — the earthing of an electrostatic charge.

No it doesn't: it may or may not reach that end; its movement is not dependent on whether any particular "end" is going to be achieved. The assumption by Aquinas that natural phenomena look forward to what the end will be turns out not to be the way things work; it is just a presumption that we take to make about things, based on a not-always-realistic projection of the way that we work.

All that can be said is that humans have a natural tendency to impute "ends" to the activities of nature, modelling whatever we do not understand in terms of ourselves and what we can most easily understand.
Yes, but that in itself is not proof of anything

My point exactly.

They are fallacies based in the natural failings of untutored minds.
Utter nonsense.

Are you saying that every tutored mind must therefore be athiest or agnostic?

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

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by bob x

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

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

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

Originally Posted by bob x

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

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

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

Originally Posted by bob x

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

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

Thomas

[cyberpi]

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

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

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

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

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

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

Hi Chris !

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

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Thomas

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

Thomas

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

Tao

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Hi Chris !

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

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

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Perfection does not exist except as a concept.

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

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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

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

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Paladin

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

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

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

Chris

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

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

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

[Paladin]

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

[bob x]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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