Is Christianity and Belief in God RATIONAL?

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
I didn’t address metaphysics. You lost me on that one bro!

My point is that metaphysics proves the points that you are brushing aside. Either you don't understand metaphysics, or you refuse to understand, because you may find out something you're trying to avoid.

How are you defining "metaphysics" and how does it prove a point I brushed aside?

The 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas.

Metaphysics does not provide facts. It's just a branch of philosophy that provides a way of looking at things. Many may use it to provide subjective answers to real world problems, but we're talking about philosophy here; not facts.

My problem with Aquinas 5 ways, is it basically says from our observation; all things that began to move require something else that moved it. But that something else must have been moved by something else, which was moved by something else. etc. etc. It also makes the assumption that everything in the Universe began to move.
Now since we can’t have an infinite number of “something else's” that act as a prior mover, we have to conclude an original mover that didn’t need to be moved by something else, that chose to move on his own; which suggest this original mover had to be more than an inanimate object, but capable of thought, decision making etc. etc. It also makes the assumption that this something else cannot be within the Universe because we already made the leap that everything within the Universe began to move, so this something else has to be outside the Universe.
Then it makes the leap that this unmoved mover is what Christians call God.

My problem with this logic is that it assumes everything in the Universe actually began to move; dismissing the possibility that some things were never stagnant but has always been moving within the Universe.
Of course this entire argument falls apart if we assume some things within the Universe don’t need an original mover, because they have always been moving.

He also makes the same type of arguments for cause, contingency, and other stuff that doesn’t come to mind right now, but they use the same basic concept.

[Philip]

Ken: My problem with this logic is that it assumes everything in the Universe actually began to move; dismissing the possibility that some things were never stagnant but has always been moving within the Universe.

Ah, Ken, you do realize why and what exhaustive scientific analysis shows the universe had a beginning, right? Because of all of the galaxies that can be tracked via their redshift signatures and measures gives us the ability to calculate the known expansion rates in reverse - and thus a rough date of the Big Bang event. Edwin Hubble originally demonstrated that more distant galaxies are moving away from us faster than closer ones.The best measurements for this parameter gives a value of about 68 km/s per megaparsec. And while Einstein once thought the universe to be in a "steady state" (that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place), he later called it his greatest blunder. Believing that the universe did not begin expanding at a specific time in the distant past - well, it's like believing the earth is flat!

Read more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

[RickD]

Ok Kenny. My hope here, is that someone who is well versed in Aquinas' 5 ways, will step in to help you understand this much, much better than I can. But since I'm responding, I'll do my best.

First, I believe you are referring to Aquinas' first way, the Argument from Motion(change). But what is very common with those who claim to be against Aquinas' 5 ways, is that they misrepresent what the actual argument is. And we need to make sure you represent what the argument actually states.

You said:

Metaphysics does not provide facts.

First, Aquinas' first four ways seek to prove God's existence through what Aquinas argued were necessary facts about the universe.

Getting back to the first way, the Argument from Motion, you said:

My problem with Aquinas 5 ways, is it basically says from our observation; all things that began to move require something else that moved it. But that something else must have been moved by something else, which was moved by something else. etc. etc. It also makes the assumption that everything in the Universe began to move.

We need to be clear that Aquinas DID NOT make an assumption in his Argument from Motion, that everything in the universe began to move(change). Here's the Argument from Motion:


The First Way: Argument from Motion(Change)


1. Some things in the world are changing.

2. Anything that is changing is being changed by something else.

3. But this something else doing the changing, if it is changing too, is also being

changed by something else, and so on.

4. Since every such series of changes has to have a first thing causing the

change, no such series of things being changed by other things can go on

forever.

5. Therefore, the first thing causing all the changes must itself be unchanging;

we call this unchanging changer “God.”

https://cmmorrison.files.wordpress.com/ ... imple1.pdf

[1over137]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

What are we talking about?

You gave me this question: "So how did the study of the physical world cause you to believe or recognize God?"

Oh yeah; back on page 7. Got it. As far as the physical laws...... what we call physical laws are just conclusions people have reached about our physical world, after repeated experimental and observation.

Kenny,
I am sceptical that the laws are just conclusions people have reached about our physical world.

[Kenny]

Kenny,
it helped me in my search
it contributed to my recognized there is God

and how?
you know, there are physical laws - why are there laws?
they are quite organized - what is behind that organization?

What are we talking about?

You gave me this question: "So how did the study of the physical world cause you to believe or recognize God?"

Oh yeah; back on page 7. Got it. As far as the physical laws...... what we call physical laws are just conclusions people have reached about our physical world, after repeated experimental and observation.

Kenny,
I am sceptical that the laws are just conclusions people have reached about our physical world.

So what do you think the Laws of Physics are?

[Philip]

The laws are descriptions of observations of how things consistently work! And the universe, world and systems all run as "if" designed and run by a brilliant, cosmic watchmaker. In fact, things are so incredibly consistent in how they work, that this is the very reason the scientific method has the ability to test things. We don't see constant randomness and chaos, but the exact opposite!

[PaulSacramento]

We do NOT know what the quantum singularity form which the Universe expanded, was comprised off.
Energy for sure BUT Matter?
One theory is that it MUST have contained all the matter of the universe BUT there is NO evidence for that OR any reason to believe that other than the question of: Where did matter come from?
Based on other types of singularities, like gravitational ones, it would seem that matter CAN'T exists there or it would be "destroyed".

That said, it doesn't matter IF the singularity had always existed or if all matter and energy where there, you would still need "first cause/unmoved mover" to get it going and that thing CAN'T be the singularity itself.

Kenny,
You seem to make the same mistake criticizing Aquinas 5 ways, as most atheists and I am not sure why...
I mean, you have read us discussing this over AND over AND over.

Aquinas NEVER says that everything has a cause or that everything changes/moves.
He says that SOMETHINGS have a cause and that SOMETHING change and that ALL the things that DO HAVE A CAUSE and that DO CHANGE, do so via action from something else.

[RickD]

As with any argument, I think the obvious first step is to understand what the argument actually says. That way we're not wasting time arguing for or against a strawman.

And from what I'm reading about Aquinas' 5 ways, it seems that a lot of people arguing against the 5 ways don't take the time to understand what they really say.

[Kenny]

We do NOT know what the quantum singularity form which the Universe expanded, was comprised off.
Energy for sure BUT Matter?
One theory is that it MUST have contained all the matter of the universe BUT there is NO evidence for that OR any reason to believe that other than the question of: Where did matter come from?
Based on other types of singularities, like gravitational ones, it would seem that matter CAN'T exists there or it would be "destroyed".

That said, it doesn't matter IF the singularity had always existed or if all matter and energy where there, you would still need "first cause/unmoved mover" to get it going and that thing CAN'T be the singularity itself.

Kenny,
You seem to make the same mistake criticizing Aquinas 5 ways, as most atheists and I am not sure why...
I mean, you have read us discussing this over AND over AND over.

Aquinas NEVER says that everything has a cause or that everything changes/moves.
He says that SOMETHINGS have a cause and that SOMETHING change and that ALL the things that DO HAVE A CAUSE and that DO CHANGE, do so via action from something else.

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

[Byblos]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

[Kenny]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

[Byblos]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

Way too many assumptions. Even if it were the case that something may be eternal, it does not follow that it is also the uncaused cause, or unmoved mover. Other things, though eternal, are still dependent by virtue of their mutability.

It so happens that it can be proven logically that there can be one and only one uncaused cause and unmoved mover but that's probably for later.

[Philip]

Byblos, seems as if Ken didn't closely follow your conversations with your friend Nils, whom finally appears to have run out of bullets. Hard to say who is more determined to remain in their unbelief, Nils or Ken (close race).

Sometimes, people make it exceptionally difficult for themselves to see what should be obvious!

[Kenny]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

Way too many assumptions. Even if it were the case that something may be eternal, it does not follow that it is also the uncaused cause, or unmoved mover. Other things, though eternal, are still dependent by virtue of their mutability.

But for the sake of conversation; let’s suppose these eternal things are uncaused causes, and unmoved movers; wouldn’t that be revenant to the 5 ways?

It so happens that it can be proven logically that there can be one and only one uncaused cause and unmoved mover but that's probably for later.

Logical proof? By all means; what logical proof do you have?

[PaulSacramento]

So Aquinas leaves open the possibility that some things other than God could be eternal?

It's not that he left it as a possibility (as in probability) because he believed it. It's that he thought it could not be proven logically (quite rightly) so he never bothered with it, particularly when it is rather irrelevant to his 5 ways.

If something other than God existed eternally and could be considered an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, etc. etc. you're telling me that would be irrelevant to his 5 ways?

So, the thing is that the uncaused cause and unmoved mover is just PART of the argument.
Aquinas knew that you can't prove an absolute negative ( other than a logical contradiction), so he didn't say that.
However, while he leaves opne the possibility of something else being eternal, he address that issue of that when he moves into the realm of actuality and potentiality in the unmoved mover/unchanged changer argument and there, quite logically and easily, he makes it clear that you can only have ONE unmoved mover ( or more correctly one unactualized actualizer - Pure ACT- Pure Omnipotence).