Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Byblos wrote:First of all, your quoting is atrocious. I had to (painfully) read your entire post just so to decipher what is attributed to you and what is attributed to others.

In any case, I will only comment on the below, since it seems to me to be a reply to my post (and not to anything Philip said).

trulyenlightened wrote:Let's me address your PSR comment first. PSR is a philosophical principle, NOT a scientific principle. It cannot be violated from a scientific perspective.

You are simply and factually wrong. PSR, just like the other principles I listed, i.e. the law of non-contradiction and the principle of causality, are assumed by science, otherwise science cannot function. Science is done on the basis that there is a reason for things to behave the way they do, otherwise there would be no reason (pun intended) to do science. Contingency facts are real principles. It represents the idea that an effect may be contingent on the cause, or versa.

trulyenlightened wrote:PSR is based on 2 basic ideas. One is internal or self-contained(a triangle is a triangle because it is by definition), and Mathematical facts and principles. The second is external, which include objects and events that must have a reason for their existence. PSR depends on

1.There is an explanation why every fact is so, and not otherwise.
2.Therefore, there are no facts that are so and can be otherwise
3.But if there are contingent facts, then there ARE facts that are so and can be otherwise
4.Therefore(from premises #2 and #3), it follows that there are no contingent facts, there are only necessary facts

Not only does PSR prove an extreme form of determinism(necessitarianism), but the standard notion of contingency is refuted on the basis of PSR. The notion that things can be otherwise then what they are is absurd.

The version of the PSR you describe above is not the same one I use and understandably so. Your version includes abstract ideas (such as contingent facts) as existing independently in some platonic realm, in which case your formulation of the PSR would fit. But in scholastic natural theology a platonic realm is not only meaningless, it cannot possibly exist for, according to the PSR alone, it would have no explanation.

trulyenlightened wrote:Even Leibniz and Spinoza recognized this absurdity. Both now conclude that, "it is the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, and not contingent".

I would love to see you site the source from which you plucked that out where Leibniz says we must regard things as necessary and not contingent.

trulyenlightened wrote:Maybe you can explain WHY you state, "the utter incoherence and self-defeating nature of such an argument", or, was this more "bluff and blunder". Until there are further discoveries at CERN and LHC, we can't be certain of the origin of all the different quantum fields. But there is no question of their existence. And, "I don't know" or "that's the way it is", is infinitely better than, "God did it".

No "bluff" or "blunder", just simply following wherever logic and reason lead. And who denied the existence of quantum fields? And you keep mentioning what science will do, as if anyone is denying that. I talk of the ultimate answer to ultimate reality and you talk about CERN .

The ultimate answer to ultimate reality is either an incoherent, inexplicable brute fact (violation of the PSR) or a coherent, self-explanatory necessity.

trulyenlightened wrote:Let's move on.

Now you can move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgu0M6YYp2s , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsaVRqZ4MKc , http://seeminglyimpossiblequestions.blo ... cient.html

These are just a few sites you might expand your understanding of this principle. I especially liked the last site. There is a difference between a necessary truth/fact and a contingent truth/fact. A necessary truth/fact is a truth statement whose negation must imply a contradiction in reality. Such that its negation would be impossible. So, if "One plus one equals two", is a necessary truth claim, then the statement "One plus one does not equal two" would imply a contradiction. Given the meanings of "one" and "two", we can immediately see that the addition of two "ones"(units) will always yield "two". But the statement "One plus one does not equal two", contradicts this. It is incomprehensible that one plus one should ever add up to anything other than two. So "One plus one equals two", is commonly held to be a necessary truth, since its negation is impossible.

A contingent truth/fact is a truth statement whose negation does not imply a contradiction in reality. That is, its negation could also have been the case. So, if "John married Jessica last Sunday" is a contingent truth, then the statement "John did not marry Jessica last Sunday", could also be true without implying a contradiction in reality. Since John could have chosen not to marry Jessica, or to have married her on a different day, the truth is truly contingent and not a necessary truth. But PSR states that, "there are no facts that are so, and can be otherwise". But contingent facts CAN be otherwise, therefore a clear contradiction. It is objectivism that restricts the idea of contingent facts to those facts that result from human choices, and human actions. These are facts one can legitimately say could have been otherwise. The alteration of any facts outside of those that result from human choices(the metaphysically given) would result in a contradiction somewhere in reality. Even if it is not apparent to one’s imagination. Therefore contingent truths/facts are not necessary facts, therefore is off the table.

I don't believe there exists an ultimate answer, or an ultimate question. This concept alone is a violation of PSR.I believe that there are many questions, but only ONE reality. In spite of your equivocation fallacy, Cern and LHC have nothing to do with an Ultimate question and answer. Maybe you should add to your list, ultimate morality, ultimate cynicism, ultimate truths, ultimate sin, ultimate excuse, ultimate altruism, and ultimate virtue and righteousness. Don

For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do? I asked you to cite your source where Leibniz said everything is necessary and you deliberately sidestepped it. Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious. And the obvious is you would rather undermine the very principle science relies upon the most, the PSR, just so you can sidestep the logical conclusion of a self-explanatory necessity.

And for the last time, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your attempt at rephrasing the PSR to include the BCCF (big conjunction of contingent facts) and how that proves determinism, fails miserably for you do not understand (actually, you deliberately choose to ignore) the fact that on classical metaphysics, what is in need of an explanation are concrete things, not propositions or abstract things. For propositions, like abstract ideas, do not stand in need of an explanation once the concrete things they represent are explained. Once a triangle is explained, there is no need to explain triangularity. Once the color red is explained, there is no need to explain redness. And for the last time, propositions and abstract objects are not concrete, existing in some platonic realm, itself in need of an explanation. They are ideas in the mind.

So try again "professor". Or you can simply move on.

You seem more interested in the arguing, than in the argument. Spinosa stated."Nothing in the Universe is contingent... It is of the nature of reason to regard things as necessary, not contingent". Leibniz stated, "If you take 'contingent...' as that which happens in such a way that no reason of any kind can be given why it should have happened, thus rather than otherwise.. then I think that such contingency is confused". What do these statements mean regarding "contingent facts" and "necessary facts? Does it sound like either supports the idea of contingent facts? Where did I sidestep this fact? I have demonstrated a clear contradiction in the premise structure, and cited quotes from both scholars. I don't know what else I can do. If you simply want to dismiss and deny the facts, then that is something I have come to expect. Although Leibniz did not say the exact words(you are technically correct), his meaning is quite clear.

"For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do"? "Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious". "you have no clue what you're talking about". Must you always start your post with insults or ad hom attacks? Usually when one starts with insults, they usually have nothing more to say. Please stick to the premise constructs as listed in PSR. Compare and contrast "contingent facts" as it relates to PSR. I'm not interested in your silly distraction(determinism, BCCF, classical metaphysics, and examples of necessary facts). Although I could have given a better example of a contingent fact, it is still a valid example. No matter how much you try to downplay it, using your self-serving creative logic.

Spare me your silly posturing long enough to stay on topic, and back up your assertions. If I don't know what I'm talking about, teach me. Give me examples, or point out why my understanding is completely wrong? Stop telling me what I think, why I think, and how I think. The first web site demonstrates the problem with "contingent facts" quite clearly. How many more web sites would be enough? 10, 20,100? You may be an expert in the fields of philosophy, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

Byblos wrote:For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do? I asked you to cite your source where Leibniz said everything is necessary and you deliberately sidestepped it. Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious. And the obvious is you would rather undermine the very principle science relies upon the most, the PSR, just so you can sidestep the logical conclusion of a self-explanatory necessity.

And for the last time, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your attempt at rephrasing the PSR to include the BCCF (big conjunction of contingent facts) and how that proves determinism, fails miserably for you do not understand (actually, you deliberately choose to ignore) the fact that on classical metaphysics, what is in need of an explanation are concrete things, not propositions or abstract things. For propositions, like abstract ideas, do not stand in need of an explanation once the concrete things they represent are explained. Once a triangle is explained, there is no need to explain triangularity. Once the color red is explained, there is no need to explain redness. And for the last time, propositions and abstract objects are not concrete, existing in some platonic realm, itself in need of an explanation. They are ideas in the mind.

So try again "professor". Or you can simply move on.

trulyenlightened wrote:You seem more interested in the arguing, than in the argument.

No, I am only interested in exposing the truth but if in that process you expose yourself as the charlatan you are then that's on you, not me.

trulyenlightened wrote:Leibniz stated, "If you take 'contingent...' as that which happens in such a way that no reason of any kind can be given why it should have happened, thus rather than otherwise.. then I think that such contingency is confused". What do these statements mean regarding "contingent facts" and "necessary facts? Does it sound like either supports the idea of contingent facts? Where did I sidestep this fact?

Lol, do you even understand what Leibniz is saying or that your attempt yet again at muddying the waters in a desperate effort to avoid the obvious? For goodness sake, Leibniz is the father of the contingency/necessity argument for the existence of God. Yet somehow you surmise from what you quote that he denies contingency? Your deception has no bounds.

Here's a simple Youtube video that explains his argument from contingency and it is exactly as I've described.
Leibniz and the contingency argument

THAT is the PSR, not some caricature straw man built for the precise purpose to deny the self-explanatory necessity.

trulyenlightened wrote:I have demonstrated a clear contradiction in the premise structure, and cited quotes from both scholars. I don't know what else I can do. If you simply want to dismiss and deny the facts, then that is something I have come to expect. Although Leibniz did not say the exact words(you are technically correct), his meaning is quite clear.

You are wrong, again and again, on Leibniz as well as the supposed non-existing contradiction in the PSR. I have clearly spelled out where and how you are wrong and yet you cling to your falsehoods. Contingent facts, just like abstract objects, DO NOT NEED AN EXPLANATION.. The only reason you insist they do is because you claim they exist as concrete objects, or in some other platonic realm. And the only reason you do that is to simply avoid the alternative. The PSR as formulated by Leibniz and as I stated it does not fall victim to your supposed contradiction.

trulyenlightened wrote:

"For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do"? "Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious". "you have no clue what you're talking about".

Must you always start your post with insults or ad hom attacks? Usually when one starts with insults, they usually have nothing more to say.

I only comment on what I perceive and I see no interaction from you, only obfuscation. Ignorance is either invincible or willful. You do not strike me as invincibly ignorant so that leaves one impression.

trulyenlightened wrote:Please stick to the premise constructs as listed in PSR. Compare and contrast "contingent facts" as it relates to PSR. I'm not interested in your silly distraction(determinism, BCCF, classical metaphysics, and examples of necessary facts). Although I could have given a better example of a contingent fact, it is still a valid example. No matter how much you try to downplay it, using your self-serving creative logic.

This is your MO, right there. I go to great lengths to explain to you, to teach you where you are wrong, that your supposed contradiction is nothing of the sort, and what do you do? You completely sidestep everything I said as self-serving and that I'm the one not sticking to the subject. Your method is very clear and I will not let you get away with it, not here. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

trulyenlightened wrote: Spare me your silly posturing long enough to stay on topic, and back up your assertions. If I don't know what I'm talking about, teach me. Give me examples, or point out why my understanding is completely wrong? Stop telling me what I think, why I think, and how I think. The first web site demonstrates the problem with "contingent facts" quite clearly. How many more web sites would be enough? 10, 20,100? You may be an expert in the fields of philosophy, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it.

You are beyond reach. I only respond to you so others can see you for what you really are, a 2-bit charlatan who's interest is to hear himself pontificate and has no interest in the truth.

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Byblos wrote:For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do? I asked you to cite your source where Leibniz said everything is necessary and you deliberately sidestepped it. Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious. And the obvious is you would rather undermine the very principle science relies upon the most, the PSR, just so you can sidestep the logical conclusion of a self-explanatory necessity.

And for the last time, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your attempt at rephrasing the PSR to include the BCCF (big conjunction of contingent facts) and how that proves determinism, fails miserably for you do not understand (actually, you deliberately choose to ignore) the fact that on classical metaphysics, what is in need of an explanation are concrete things, not propositions or abstract things. For propositions, like abstract ideas, do not stand in need of an explanation once the concrete things they represent are explained. Once a triangle is explained, there is no need to explain triangularity. Once the color red is explained, there is no need to explain redness. And for the last time, propositions and abstract objects are not concrete, existing in some platonic realm, itself in need of an explanation. They are ideas in the mind.

So try again "professor". Or you can simply move on.

trulyenlightened wrote:You seem more interested in the arguing, than in the argument.

No, I am only interested in exposing the truth but if in that process you expose yourself as the charlatan you are then that's on you, not me.

trulyenlightened wrote:Leibniz stated, "If you take 'contingent...' as that which happens in such a way that no reason of any kind can be given why it should have happened, thus rather than otherwise.. then I think that such contingency is confused". What do these statements mean regarding "contingent facts" and "necessary facts? Does it sound like either supports the idea of contingent facts? Where did I sidestep this fact?

Lol, do you even understand what Leibniz is saying or that your attempt yet again at muddying the waters in a desperate effort to avoid the obvious? For goodness sake, Leibniz is the father of the contingency/necessity argument for the existence of God. Yet somehow you surmise from what you quote that he denies contingency? Your deception has no bounds.

Here's a simple Youtube video that explains his argument from contingency and it is exactly as I've described.
Leibniz and the contingency argument

THAT is the PSR, not some caricature straw man built for the precise purpose to deny the self-explanatory necessity.

trulyenlightened wrote:I have demonstrated a clear contradiction in the premise structure, and cited quotes from both scholars. I don't know what else I can do. If you simply want to dismiss and deny the facts, then that is something I have come to expect. Although Leibniz did not say the exact words(you are technically correct), his meaning is quite clear.

You are wrong, again and again, on Leibniz as well as the supposed non-existing contradiction in the PSR. I have clearly spelled out where and how you are wrong and yet you cling to your falsehoods. Contingent facts, just like abstract objects, DO NOT NEED AN EXPLANATION.. The only reason you insist they do is because you claim they exist as concrete objects, or in some other platonic realm. And the only reason you do that is to simply avoid the alternative. The PSR as formulated by Leibniz and as I stated it does not fall victim to your supposed contradiction.

trulyenlightened wrote:

"For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do"? "Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious". "you have no clue what you're talking about".

Must you always start your post with insults or ad hom attacks? Usually when one starts with insults, they usually have nothing more to say.

I only comment on what I perceive and I see no interaction from you, only obfuscation. Ignorance is either invincible or willful. You do not strike me as invincibly ignorant so that leaves one impression.

trulyenlightened wrote:Please stick to the premise constructs as listed in PSR. Compare and contrast "contingent facts" as it relates to PSR. I'm not interested in your silly distraction(determinism, BCCF, classical metaphysics, and examples of necessary facts). Although I could have given a better example of a contingent fact, it is still a valid example. No matter how much you try to downplay it, using your self-serving creative logic.

This is your MO, right there. I go to great lengths to explain to you, to teach you where you are wrong, that your supposed contradiction is nothing of the sort, and what do you do? You completely sidestep everything I said as self-serving and that I'm the one not sticking to the subject. Your method is very clear and I will not let you get away with it, not here. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

trulyenlightened wrote: Spare me your silly posturing long enough to stay on topic, and back up your assertions. If I don't know what I'm talking about, teach me. Give me examples, or point out why my understanding is completely wrong? Stop telling me what I think, why I think, and how I think. The first web site demonstrates the problem with "contingent facts" quite clearly. How many more web sites would be enough? 10, 20,100? You may be an expert in the fields of philosophy, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it.

You are beyond reach. I only respond to you so others can see you for what you really are, a 2-bit charlatan who's interest is to hear himself pontificate and has no interest in the truth.

If exposing the truth means exposing myself, how is this in any way relevant? It is only the truth that is relevant. Or is this like most of your comments, IRRELEVANT? Was that comment meant to imply or insinuate that my character and motives are bad? Although calling me a charlatan says more about your character than it does about mine. Who uses such a term anymore? Are you someone who clings desperately to the past for security? You're not the first to claim that their dogmatic views are rationally justifiable. And you certainly won't be the last. Science is NOT interested in what your views and beliefs can explain. Science is only interested in what your facts and evidence can explain. So, on my thread, can you stick with simple logic or facts, and use your opinions on other threads? I will comment on your silly rant later. Let's move on.

I agree that for everything that exists, there must exist a reason or explanation for that existence. I agree that for some things that exist, their existence is explained in the "necessity of their nature"(mathematics, shape of triangles or circles, etc.). Are you following me here? If there is a problem, please point it out. I also agree that there are some things whose existence can't be explained by the necessity of their nature. They can only be explained by their cause, and their effect. Any problems so far? If you want to label the former as a "necessary fact" and the latter as a, "contingent fact", who cares! It is only the concept that is important. Now let's look at the problems, that are found in the explanations themselves.

No necessary fact can explain all contingent propositions. The problem is when you allow a necessary fact to
explain a contingent fact, there may be more than just one necessary fact. How can we have differing explanations for
one contingent fact? Also, how do we reduce these necessary facts down to just one? We seem to avoid this problem by
simply saying, that if the explanation is a necessary proposition, then the explanation must be conceptual. This is my
objection. Why must the explanation be conceptual?

Let me give you a brief history of the evolution of the PSR. It may give you a proper perspective of the critical thinking of the people in that era, and the critical thinking of the people today. Feel free to correct me on any facts so far, or simply dismiss it all as irrelevant. In the 11th Century, Anselm of Canterbury claimed that he could come up with a deductive proof to prove the existence of God. Remember, deductive arguments are tautologies, they are either valid or invalid(cogent). This was later called the, "ontological argument". This was truly the buzz among the medieval Christian philosophers of the time. 200 years later, Thomas Aquinas didn't really buy into this argument. Although he was a believer in God, he also knew that he needed evidence for his belief, before he could dismiss Anselm's entire argument. He knew that he would have to come up with something better, to prove God's existence. So he came up with the five arguments to prove the existence of God. The first four arguments(Motion, Causation, Contingency, and Degrees), are called the, "Cosmological argument". This is an argument where the premises try to prove God's existence, by what he claims as being the "necessary facts" about the Universe. The last argument is the "Teleological argument". This is an argument based on "purpose". Since all things in the Universe have purpose or design, then there must exist a "Purposer" or a "Designer". That is, a Purposer" who creates purpose, and a "Designer" who creates design. I won't go through each of the 5 arguments again, so I will only focus my attention on the two obvious problems, that any rational thinker would notice. Before I continue, is there any problems so far that would indicate that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Let's move on to a more critical evaluation.

If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments. Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".
2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.
4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

Are you still with me so far. Please feel free to point out any specific flaws or errors(other than they're just plain wrong) in my logic so far? Remember, you can always accept the conclusion, but reject an argument. I may believe in the existence of God, but simply don't think that Aquinas's arguments proves it. If you disagree with an argument, you don't get to just say, "you don't know what you are talking about" or "you are just wrong". You must give a counterargument. What is it that I got wrong, and how can you do better(no website referral services)? Why are your reasons superior to mine? This is called engaging in a philosophical argument. This was only my evaluation of Aquinas's cosmological argument. Shall I now go to his Teleological, fifth argument? Or do you get the picture, from a critical perspective?

I don't care if Leibniz is the father of Pizzas, I still don't like pizzas. I don't care if Pythagoras stated that all triangles have four sides in the vacuum of space, he would still be wrong. The only thing that you have spelled out, is that you refuse to backup anything that you assert. You simply make excuses to NOT engage. And when confronted with truth and brute facts, you're reduced to hurdling character insults, and demeaning ad hominems. You must be getting desperate trying to protect exposing just how little you know about the subject. You must also be desperate, if you need to try and psych people out just to save face. If you don't really understand the subject, just say so. I will gladly explain it to you. Just because a person is ignorant about something, doesn't mean he is a charatan. You are correct, others reading these posts will see my true character, but they will also see yours.

This is the only thread that I have. You do not have to visit or comment on it. I don't think that your deceptive MO for visiting my thread, would be considered morally or intellectually honest. My thread is for others with enough integrity and self-respect, that can maintain a less hostile and threatening discourse than you. It is for others that can see the obvious flaws in Aquinas's arguments, unfiltered by indoctrinated dogma. It is for those whose minds and character are not as imperious as yours. My advice for you, is that if you are not interested in honesty, truth, knowledge, or an intellectual discourse, then there are many other places you can hang out. So, in the future if you are going to respond to my post, don't keep making excuses why you can't be bothered addressing my points. Just don't visit! But if you do visit, please bring your "A" game. Don

And here is a perfect example of a skeptic seeing what they WANT and not what is there:

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything.

Talk about indoctrination.

Aquinas NEVER says that EVERYTHING has a starting point.
He doesn't speak of "liner sequences" but of "hierarchical sequences".

If you don't know BASIC Aquinas, don't argue against it.

And if you don't understand why infinite regress is not possible then you don't have the basic grasp of Aquinas, at all.

trulyenlightened wrote:

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

Byblos wrote:For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do? I asked you to cite your source where Leibniz said everything is necessary and you deliberately sidestepped it. Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious. And the obvious is you would rather undermine the very principle science relies upon the most, the PSR, just so you can sidestep the logical conclusion of a self-explanatory necessity.

And for the last time, you have no clue what you're talking about. Your attempt at rephrasing the PSR to include the BCCF (big conjunction of contingent facts) and how that proves determinism, fails miserably for you do not understand (actually, you deliberately choose to ignore) the fact that on classical metaphysics, what is in need of an explanation are concrete things, not propositions or abstract things. For propositions, like abstract ideas, do not stand in need of an explanation once the concrete things they represent are explained. Once a triangle is explained, there is no need to explain triangularity. Once the color red is explained, there is no need to explain redness. And for the last time, propositions and abstract objects are not concrete, existing in some platonic realm, itself in need of an explanation. They are ideas in the mind.

So try again "professor". Or you can simply move on.

trulyenlightened wrote:You seem more interested in the arguing, than in the argument.

No, I am only interested in exposing the truth but if in that process you expose yourself as the charlatan you are then that's on you, not me.

trulyenlightened wrote:Leibniz stated, "If you take 'contingent...' as that which happens in such a way that no reason of any kind can be given why it should have happened, thus rather than otherwise.. then I think that such contingency is confused". What do these statements mean regarding "contingent facts" and "necessary facts? Does it sound like either supports the idea of contingent facts? Where did I sidestep this fact?

Lol, do you even understand what Leibniz is saying or that your attempt yet again at muddying the waters in a desperate effort to avoid the obvious? For goodness sake, Leibniz is the father of the contingency/necessity argument for the existence of God. Yet somehow you surmise from what you quote that he denies contingency? Your deception has no bounds.

Here's a simple Youtube video that explains his argument from contingency and it is exactly as I've described.
Leibniz and the contingency argument

THAT is the PSR, not some caricature straw man built for the precise purpose to deny the self-explanatory necessity.

trulyenlightened wrote:I have demonstrated a clear contradiction in the premise structure, and cited quotes from both scholars. I don't know what else I can do. If you simply want to dismiss and deny the facts, then that is something I have come to expect. Although Leibniz did not say the exact words(you are technically correct), his meaning is quite clear.

You are wrong, again and again, on Leibniz as well as the supposed non-existing contradiction in the PSR. I have clearly spelled out where and how you are wrong and yet you cling to your falsehoods. Contingent facts, just like abstract objects, DO NOT NEED AN EXPLANATION.. The only reason you insist they do is because you claim they exist as concrete objects, or in some other platonic realm. And the only reason you do that is to simply avoid the alternative. The PSR as formulated by Leibniz and as I stated it does not fall victim to your supposed contradiction.

trulyenlightened wrote:

"For an educator who claims to value honesty, you sure don't practice what you preach, do"? "Some might think you are being obtuse but I believe it is a classic case of willful ignorance, for the alternative is to admit the obvious". "you have no clue what you're talking about".

Must you always start your post with insults or ad hom attacks? Usually when one starts with insults, they usually have nothing more to say.

I only comment on what I perceive and I see no interaction from you, only obfuscation. Ignorance is either invincible or willful. You do not strike me as invincibly ignorant so that leaves one impression.

trulyenlightened wrote:Please stick to the premise constructs as listed in PSR. Compare and contrast "contingent facts" as it relates to PSR. I'm not interested in your silly distraction(determinism, BCCF, classical metaphysics, and examples of necessary facts). Although I could have given a better example of a contingent fact, it is still a valid example. No matter how much you try to downplay it, using your self-serving creative logic.

This is your MO, right there. I go to great lengths to explain to you, to teach you where you are wrong, that your supposed contradiction is nothing of the sort, and what do you do? You completely sidestep everything I said as self-serving and that I'm the one not sticking to the subject. Your method is very clear and I will not let you get away with it, not here. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

trulyenlightened wrote: Spare me your silly posturing long enough to stay on topic, and back up your assertions. If I don't know what I'm talking about, teach me. Give me examples, or point out why my understanding is completely wrong? Stop telling me what I think, why I think, and how I think. The first web site demonstrates the problem with "contingent facts" quite clearly. How many more web sites would be enough? 10, 20,100? You may be an expert in the fields of philosophy, but you certainly haven't demonstrated it.

You are beyond reach. I only respond to you so others can see you for what you really are, a 2-bit charlatan who's interest is to hear himself pontificate and has no interest in the truth.

If exposing the truth means exposing myself, how is this in any way relevant? It is only the truth that is relevant. Or is this like most of your comments, IRRELEVANT? Was that comment meant to imply or insinuate that my character and motives are bad? Although calling me a charlatan says more about your character than it does about mine. Who uses such a term anymore? Are you someone who clings desperately to the past for security? You're not the first to claim that their dogmatic views are rationally justifiable. And you certainly won't be the last. Science is NOT interested in what your views and beliefs can explain. Science is only interested in what your facts and evidence can explain. So, on my thread, can you stick with simple logic or facts, and use your opinions on other threads? I will comment on your silly rant later. Let's move on.

I agree that for everything that exists, there must exist a reason or explanation for that existence. I agree that for some things that exist, their existence is explained in the "necessity of their nature"(mathematics, shape of triangles or circles, etc.). Are you following me here? If there is a problem, please point it out. I also agree that there are some things whose existence can't be explained by the necessity of their nature. They can only be explained by their cause, and their effect. Any problems so far? If you want to label the former as a "necessary fact" and the latter as a, "contingent fact", who cares! It is only the concept that is important. Now let's look at the problems, that are found in the explanations themselves.

No necessary fact can explain all contingent propositions. The problem is when you allow a necessary fact to
explain a contingent fact, there may be more than just one necessary fact. How can we have differing explanations for
one contingent fact? Also, how do we reduce these necessary facts down to just one? We seem to avoid this problem by
simply saying, that if the explanation is a necessary proposition, then the explanation must be conceptual. This is my
objection. Why must the explanation be conceptual?

Let me give you a brief history of the evolution of the PSR. It may give you a proper perspective of the critical thinking of the people in that era, and the critical thinking of the people today. Feel free to correct me on any facts so far, or simply dismiss it all as irrelevant. In the 11th Century, Anselm of Canterbury claimed that he could come up with a deductive proof to prove the existence of God. Remember, deductive arguments are tautologies, they are either valid or invalid(cogent). This was later called the, "ontological argument". This was truly the buzz among the medieval Christian philosophers of the time. 200 years later, Thomas Aquinas didn't really buy into this argument. Although he was a believer in God, he also knew that he needed evidence for his belief, before he could dismiss Anselm's entire argument. He knew that he would have to come up with something better, to prove God's existence. So he came up with the five arguments to prove the existence of God. The first four arguments(Motion, Causation, Contingency, and Degrees), are called the, "Cosmological argument". This is an argument where the premises try to prove God's existence, by what he claims as being the "necessary facts" about the Universe. The last argument is the "Teleological argument". This is an argument based on "purpose". Since all things in the Universe have purpose or design, then there must exist a "Purposer" or a "Designer". That is, a Purposer" who creates purpose, and a "Designer" who creates design. I won't go through each of the 5 arguments again, so I will only focus my attention on the two obvious problems, that any rational thinker would notice. Before I continue, is there any problems so far that would indicate that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Let's move on to a more critical evaluation.

If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments. Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".
2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.
4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

Are you still with me so far. Please feel free to point out any specific flaws or errors(other than they're just plain wrong) in my logic so far? Remember, you can always accept the conclusion, but reject an argument. I may believe in the existence of God, but simply don't think that Aquinas's arguments proves it. If you disagree with an argument, you don't get to just say, "you don't know what you are talking about" or "you are just wrong". You must give a counterargument. What is it that I got wrong, and how can you do better(no website referral services)? Why are your reasons superior to mine? This is called engaging in a philosophical argument. This was only my evaluation of Aquinas's cosmological argument. Shall I now go to his Teleological, fifth argument? Or do you get the picture, from a critical perspective?

I don't care if Leibniz is the father of Pizzas, I still don't like pizzas. I don't care if Pythagoras stated that all triangles have four sides in the vacuum of space, he would still be wrong. The only thing that you have spelled out, is that you refuse to backup anything that you assert. You simply make excuses to NOT engage. And when confronted with truth and brute facts, you're reduced to hurdling character insults, and demeaning ad hominems. You must be getting desperate trying to protect exposing just how little you know about the subject. You must also be desperate, if you need to try and psych people out just to save face. If you don't really understand the subject, just say so. I will gladly explain it to you. Just because a person is ignorant about something, doesn't mean he is a charatan. You are correct, others reading these posts will see my true character, but they will also see yours.

This is the only thread that I have. You do not have to visit or comment on it. I don't think that your deceptive MO for visiting my thread, would be considered morally or intellectually honest. My thread is for others with enough integrity and self-respect, that can maintain a less hostile and threatening discourse than you. It is for others that can see the obvious flaws in Aquinas's arguments, unfiltered by indoctrinated dogma. It is for those whose minds and character are not as imperious as yours. My advice for you, is that if you are not interested in honesty, truth, knowledge, or an intellectual discourse, then there are many other places you can hang out. So, in the future if you are going to respond to my post, don't keep making excuses why you can't be bothered addressing my points. Just don't visit! But if you do visit, please bring your "A" game. Don

Response coming soon...

PaulSacramento wrote:And here is a perfect example of a skeptic seeing what they WANT and not what is there:

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything.

Talk about indoctrination.

Aquinas NEVER says that EVERYTHING has a starting point.
He doesn't speak of "liner sequences" but of "hierarchical sequences".

If you don't know BASIC Aquinas, don't argue against it.

Then I suggest that you learn that all true dichotomies are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. Either everything has an infinite regression of causes(infinite causality), or there is a single cause for everything and every event. In other words, either all things and events are the result of a progression of causes with a beginning(start), or, all things and events had a progression of causes without a beginning(start). Aquinas doesn't use the term "dude" either, but that is as irrelevant as trying to change "linear sequences" to mean the "level of importance" of the sequences. Only the name has been changed to protect the argument. Maybe you can explain what he really meant by an immovable mover, or an uncaused cause? Sounds like a start or beginning to me.

Does Aquinas not state that there CAN'T be an infinite regress of causality and movement? Since I don't know "BASIC AQUINAS", let's hear what you know. Because other than a string of denials, I hear very little sound logic, or any rational counterarguments. Maybe you can give me an example of a category that would include something with, and without a beginning at the same time. It might be more intellectually honest if you simply address the logic of what Aquinas DID say, instead of what he DIDN'T say. Don

PaulSacramento wrote:And if you don't understand why infinite regress is not possible then you don't have the basic grasp of Aquinas, at all.

Not only do I not understand why an infinite regression of causality is not possible, I would also like to know, HOW DOES AQUINAS KNOW, without simply making self-serving philosophical assumptions? How does a 13th Century doctor, Dominican Friar, Catholic Priest, and part time philosopher, have any concept of the true meaning of the term "infinity"? What do you think infinity divided by infinity equals? Infinity is a concept/idea that even 21st Century scientist are still trying to wrap their heads around. Since it is NOT a number, we can't represent it as a finite number. Stating that it can or cannot be used to represent any kind of limitation, is an equivocation error. A 13th Century friar would not know this.

Can you explain how a 13th Century priest, could have a full understanding of a concept like infinity? Especially, since it was first introduced in the 17th Century(John Wallis), and the proof of its existence published in the latter 19th Century(George Cantor). But he knew it well enough to know that his entire argument depended on infinity being taken out of the argument. But still contradicted in his premises. He knew that if he included "infinite regression, the "special pleading" fallacy would be very hard to avoid or explain. He would only be left with an argument from ignorance, a false tautologies, and circular reasoning.

If you think that there is sufficient reason to believe in this 13th Century logic, then I simply disagree with your reasoning. And, until you can point out the specific flaws in my reasoning, I will still disagree with you. No matter HOW many times you tell me that I just don't understand "Aquinas". Don

Okay, let's address this incoherent mess once and for all. I will just ignore all the irrelevant stuff for now and concentrate on the two main points, i.e. the (I) PSR and (II) Aquinas.

(I) PSR:

trulyenlightened wrote: I agree that for everything that exists, there must exist a reason or explanation for that existence. I agree that for some things that exist, their existence is explained in the "necessity of their nature"(mathematics, shape of triangles or circles, etc.). Are you following me here? If there is a problem, please point it out. I also agree that there are some things whose existence can't be explained by the necessity of their nature. They can only be explained by their cause, and their effect. Any problems so far? If you want to label the former as a "necessary fact" and the latter as a, "contingent fact", who cares! It is only the concept that is important. Now let's look at the problems, that are found in the explanations themselves.

No necessary fact can explain all contingent propositions. The problem is when you allow a necessary fact to
explain a contingent fact, there may be more than just one necessary fact. How can we have differing explanations for
one contingent fact? Also, how do we reduce these necessary facts down to just one? We seem to avoid this problem by
simply saying, that if the explanation is a necessary proposition, then the explanation must be conceptual. This is my
objection. Why must the explanation be conceptual?

While preparing an answer to this, it became more obvious to me that we are arguing from 2 different philosophical perspectives, mine being from a Thomist realist perspective and your is, well, I don't know what yours is, nominalist sometimes, other times not so. In any case, it is irrelevant as I will demonstrate. Full disclosure first, it took some time to put this together and I could not have done it without the invaluable contribution of a more learned friend who gave me full permission to use some of his material as I see fit. So if you're reading this Chris, thank you.

So again, on your formulation of the PSR, let us suppose (grant) that there are no contingencies, everything is necessary (my maintaining that contingent facts are like abstract ideas in no need of explanation notwithstanding). The question then becomes, are there different kinds of necessity? And the answer is yes. There is absolute necessity and there is necessity by supposition. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to make this distinction, for your 'necessary' is only necessary by supposition, not absolutely. Are you with me so far? Good, let us proceed in showing, not only how your argument fails, but it actually supports my argument for absolute necessity.

So, on your formulation, how is everything necessary only by supposition, you ask? Well, I will tell you. Take this as an example, If I am sitting, I am necessarily sitting. The PSR (given the extra premises you added) sees to that, and rightfully so. There is a reason that I am sitting, and given those reasons, I am necessarily sitting, in the sense that, given those reasons it would in fact be a contradiction to say that I'm not sitting.

But that does not, contrary to your claim, mean that there are no such things as contingent truths. Something can be necessary by supposition and still could have been otherwise. In other words, it may be true that to deny something would entail a contradiction and yet still assert that it could have been otherwise.

Note the following syllogism:

(1) If A, B, and C obtain, then I cannot fail to be sitting
(2) A, B, and C obtain,
(3) Therefore, I am sitting
(4) But I am not sitting
But then (1) is contradicted

Yet who would conclude from this necessity by supposition that I necessarily had to be sitting? It could have been that A, B, and C did not have to obtain. And it does no good to claim that this exact sort of reasoning would apply to A, B, and C individually, such that if A obtains, then necessarily that means it's sufficient conditions also obtained. It's no good because once again, such necessity would be of supposition only. So your argument fails to show there is no absolute necessity, only that all necessity is by supposition. But that is trivially so.

In fact, even from your take on the PSR, we still have an argument for God. For if ALL things are necessary by supposition only, then ALL things could have been other than what they are, then NOTHING is explained. Necessity of supposition is causally linked in an essential manner, and thus, you eventually have to come to something that is necessary absolutely.

Now some things are necessary absolutely in an abstract sense. It is absolutely necessary that triangles have three sides and that 2+2=4. But those abstract things, as I've argued many times, don't actually exist, and so they don't stand in causal relations to anything. Other things are absolutely necessary that do exist in real things but cannot answer our argument. For example, I will my own good necessarily, and that absolutely (because it is in my nature to will my good necessarily). However, that there exists an "I" to will my own good is itself a necessity of supposition only, so if we stop there, then nothing is explained. We ultimately have to come to a truly self existent explanation, an explanation that explains itself intrinsically, and this makes all other explanations possible.

In short, even if I grant that your PSR denies contingency, then I point out that it only does so by affirming that all that is, is at least by necessity of supposition. And yet necessity of supposition itself demands a causal explanation in line with the PSR, and so we still have to conclude in an abolute necessity and that God exists.

One more point to make, your argument shows that nothing is "contingent" in the sense that it could actually be other than what it actually is. It is a self-contradiction to say that something is what it is not. It does not, contrary to what you seem to think, say that something could not have been other than what it was. Try to follow me here. In other words, your argument does not prove any sort of determinism in a temporal sense, as if what is, is what was destined to be. Rather, it only proves determinism in a presentist sense: what is, is because it was, in fact, determined to be what is. But who in their right mind would ever say that something is not what it is because it was determined (by something) to be what it is? Did I lose you yet? I hope not, the next point is very important to show the incoherence of your position.

In conclusion, PSR is true and demands an absolute necessity even if everything is necessary by supposition. So on the very strength of your own argument, you need to admit that God exists, unless you wish to argue that the PSR is false. But in that case then, you're claiming both that some things are what they are with absolutely no reason whatsoever (which means everything may as well be what it is for no reason whatsoever), and that therefore your own argument is false because it seeks to show what is true based on a REASON. Yet if there are not, after all, reasons for things to be what they are, then your own argument fails to show what anything actually is, including your own conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(II) Aquinas:

trulyenlightened wrote:I won't go through each of the 5 arguments again, so I will only focus my attention on the two obvious problems, that any rational thinker would notice. Before I continue, is there any problems so far that would indicate that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Let's move on to a more critical evaluation.

More critical evaluation? Is that in fact what you did? I don't think so. You simply borrowed someone else's words and claimed them as your owm. Of course, that does not invalid the argument itself, that's done on the lack of merits of the argument itself, as I will show. Now before you go on complaining that I'm attacking you personally, I want the reader (and the mods) to read the points TE posted and I quoted below, then watch the following 10 min video and tell me what you see. TE's points are an almost exact transcription of that video, with no citations or proper quotation on his part. And he's a professor.

trulyenlightened wrote:If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments. Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".
2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.
4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

And the only reason I made the connection is that I've used this same video numerous times to show the straw man fallacies atheists must resort to to argue against Aquinas. How ironic.

In any case, on to the argument itself:

trulyenlightened wrote:If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments.

The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason. Because it coherently explains everything. So you are very much mistaken on that point.

trulyenlightened wrote:Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

That's only because I doubt very much you took any time at all to actually understand the argument since you're too busy copying other people's work.

trulyenlightened wrote: 1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".

Wrong.
There is no such thing as "any particular god" as if God is one of many, belonging to the class of gods. The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist.

On uniqueness alone, there can be one and only one unactualized actualizer for if there were 2 of them then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks. For if there were no distinguishing features then they would be absolutely identical and therefore one. But if there were distinguishing features then the one that lacks the feature would depend on the other to obtain that features. In other words, it is a potential that must be actualized. But if an entity has some potential then it fails to be the unactualized actualizer by definition. Therefore, there is only one God.

Note that all of God's attributes can be reasoned as such without having to refer to revelation, scripture, or anything but reason alone. This is what we call the doctrine of divine simplicity. You see Don, not only do we believe in the form simple to complex, we take to its extreme absolute simplicity.

trulyenlightened wrote: 2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Wrong.
From reason alone we can deduce God's attributes of unity, immutability, timelessnes, incorporiality, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, and absolute love. That is a precise description of the God of the Bible. But no one is discussing religion here so whay do you bring it up? (other than you didn't even attempt to think of the work you were transcribing).

trulyenlightened wrote:3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.

Wrong as already shown.

trulyenlightened wrote: 4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

Wrong on so many levels.
God's intelligence can be shown from many arguments, the least of which the argument from essence and existence. I won't list here because I intend to use it in the Aquinas thread so you'll just have to stay tuned.

All the other straw man nonsense are invalidated by vritue of their impossibility to be an unactualized actualizer as argued above.

trulyenlightened wrote: But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

If you had bothered to actually read Aquinas you would have been utterly embarraced to consider such a straw man of an argument. Tell me though, does it not bother your sense of intellect at all that the very point that Aquinas explicitely affirms, i.e. than an infinite tempral causal series CANNOT be denied by reason alone, is the one you're assuming he uses in his argument? Don't you find that a little peculiar? Or is it possible you've misunderstand the argument?

Here, I will quote the relevant part where Aquinas denies it can be shown from reason that the universe is finite:

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (I:32:1. The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from "here" and "now"; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (I:19:3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

Note that last sentence. Aquinas thought so little for the finitude of the universe that he was afraid people will laugh at whoever uses it. And yet you believe that's what he used in his arguments. Do you really think one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time denies one thing to then turn around and use it in his argument? But then again, I have no reason to believe you've even bother to read any argument.

trulyenlightened wrote: 2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

Wrong.
It is the classic straw man argument and it so trivially untrue that really, anyone who puts it forth ought to be banned from materialism. It is an embarressment and can be shown very simply by stating that, the theist's argument never, ever, EVER, EVER stated that EVERYTHING was put in motion by something else. On that fact alone, this stupidity fails.

The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion.

trulyenlightened wrote: Are you still with me so far. Please feel free to point out any specific flaws or errors(other than they're just plain wrong) in my logic so far?

Oh I know exactly where you are and have shown clearly and coherently where you (or whoever you choose to copy from) are wrong every step of the way.

trulyenlightened wrote: This is the only thread that I have. You do not have to visit or comment on it.

But someone has to show you the error of your ways so you're stuck with me bud.

Byblos wrote:Okay, let's address this incoherent mess once and for all. I will just ignore all the irrelevant stuff for now and concentrate on the two main points, i.e. the (I) PSR and (II) Aquinas.

(I) PSR:

trulyenlightened wrote: I agree that for everything that exists, there must exist a reason or explanation for that existence. I agree that for some things that exist, their existence is explained in the "necessity of their nature"(mathematics, shape of triangles or circles, etc.). Are you following me here? If there is a problem, please point it out. I also agree that there are some things whose existence can't be explained by the necessity of their nature. They can only be explained by their cause, and their effect. Any problems so far? If you want to label the former as a "necessary fact" and the latter as a, "contingent fact", who cares! It is only the concept that is important. Now let's look at the problems, that are found in the explanations themselves.

No necessary fact can explain all contingent propositions. The problem is when you allow a necessary fact to
explain a contingent fact, there may be more than just one necessary fact. How can we have differing explanations for
one contingent fact? Also, how do we reduce these necessary facts down to just one? We seem to avoid this problem by
simply saying, that if the explanation is a necessary proposition, then the explanation must be conceptual. This is my
objection. Why must the explanation be conceptual?

While preparing an answer to this, it became more obvious to me that we are arguing from 2 different philosophical perspectives, mine being from a Thomist realist perspective and your is, well, I don't know what yours is, nominalist sometimes, other times not so. In any case, it is irrelevant as I will demonstrate. Full disclosure first, it took some time to put this together and I could not have done it without the invaluable contribution of a more learned friend who gave me full permission to use some of his material as I see fit. So if you're reading this Chris, thank you.

So again, on your formulation of the PSR, let us suppose (grant) that there are no contingencies, everything is necessary (my maintaining that contingent facts are like abstract ideas in no need of explanation notwithstanding). The question then becomes, are there different kinds of necessity? And the answer is yes. There is absolute necessity and there is necessity by supposition. The reason your argument fails is that you fail to make this distinction, for your 'necessary' is only necessary by supposition, not absolutely. Are you with me so far? Good, let us proceed in showing, not only how your argument fails, but it actually supports my argument for absolute necessity.

So, on your formulation, how is everything necessary only by supposition, you ask? Well, I will tell you. Take this as an example, If I am sitting, I am necessarily sitting. The PSR (given the extra premises you added) sees to that, and rightfully so. There is a reason that I am sitting, and given those reasons, I am necessarily sitting, in the sense that, given those reasons it would in fact be a contradiction to say that I'm not sitting.

But that does not, contrary to your claim, mean that there are no such things as contingent truths. Something can be necessary by supposition and still could have been otherwise. In other words, it may be true that to deny something would entail a contradiction and yet still assert that it could have been otherwise.

Note the following syllogism:

(1) If A, B, and C obtain, then I cannot fail to be sitting
(2) A, B, and C obtain,
(3) Therefore, I am sitting
(4) But I am not sitting
But then (1) is contradicted

Yet who would conclude from this necessity by supposition that I necessarily had to be sitting? It could have been that A, B, and C did not have to obtain. And it does no good to claim that this exact sort of reasoning would apply to A, B, and C individually, such that if A obtains, then necessarily that means it's sufficient conditions also obtained. It's no good because once again, such necessity would be of supposition only. So your argument fails to show there is no absolute necessity, only that all necessity is by supposition. But that is trivially so.

In fact, even from your take on the PSR, we still have an argument for God. For if ALL things are necessary by supposition only, then ALL things could have been other than what they are, then NOTHING is explained. Necessity of supposition is causally linked in an essential manner, and thus, you eventually have to come to something that is necessary absolutely.

Now some things are necessary absolutely in an abstract sense. It is absolutely necessary that triangles have three sides and that 2+2=4. But those abstract things, as I've argued many times, don't actually exist, and so they don't stand in causal relations to anything. Other things are absolutely necessary that do exist in real things but cannot answer our argument. For example, I will my own good necessarily, and that absolutely (because it is in my nature to will my good necessarily). However, that there exists an "I" to will my own good is itself a necessity of supposition only, so if we stop there, then nothing is explained. We ultimately have to come to a truly self existent explanation, an explanation that explains itself intrinsically, and this makes all other explanations possible.

In short, even if I grant that your PSR denies contingency, then I point out that it only does so by affirming that all that is, is at least by necessity of supposition. And yet necessity of supposition itself demands a causal explanation in line with the PSR, and so we still have to conclude in an abolute necessity and that God exists.

One more point to make, your argument shows that nothing is "contingent" in the sense that it could actually be other than what it actually is. It is a self-contradiction to say that something is what it is not. It does not, contrary to what you seem to think, say that something could not have been other than what it was. Try to follow me here. In other words, your argument does not prove any sort of determinism in a temporal sense, as if what is, is what was destined to be. Rather, it only proves determinism in a presentist sense: what is, is because it was, in fact, determined to be what is. But who in their right mind would ever say that something is not what it is because it was determined (by something) to be what it is? Did I lose you yet? I hope not, the next point is very important to show the incoherence of your position.

In conclusion, PSR is true and demands an absolute necessity even if everything is necessary by supposition. So on the very strength of your own argument, you need to admit that God exists, unless you wish to argue that the PSR is false. But in that case then, you're claiming both that some things are what they are with absolutely no reason whatsoever (which means everything may as well be what it is for no reason whatsoever), and that therefore your own argument is false because it seeks to show what is true based on a REASON. Yet if there are not, after all, reasons for things to be what they are, then your own argument fails to show what anything actually is, including your own conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(II) Aquinas:

trulyenlightened wrote:I won't go through each of the 5 arguments again, so I will only focus my attention on the two obvious problems, that any rational thinker would notice. Before I continue, is there any problems so far that would indicate that I don't have a clue what I'm talking about? Let's move on to a more critical evaluation.

More critical evaluation? Is that in fact what you did? I don't think so. You simply borrowed someone else's words and claimed them as your owm. Of course, that does not invalid the argument itself, that's done on the lack of merits of the argument itself, as I will show. Now before you go on complaining that I'm attacking you personally, I want the reader (and the mods) to read the points TE posted and I quoted below, then watch the following 10 min video and tell me what you see. TE's points are an almost exact transcription of that video, with no citations or proper quotation on his part. And he's a professor.

trulyenlightened wrote:If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments. Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".
2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.
4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

And the only reason I made the connection is that I've used this same video numerous times to show the straw man fallacies atheists must resort to to argue against Aquinas. How ironic.

In any case, on to the argument itself:

trulyenlightened wrote:If I think that an argument is flawed, it is my job to try to figure out why. Not to just keep asserting that it is or that it isn't. It is ironic that by and large philosophers, atheist and theist alike are not impressed with Aquinas's arguments.

The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason. Because it coherently explains everything. So you are very much mistaken on that point.

trulyenlightened wrote:Even if everything was correct, it does not prove theism. This is absurd, since that was the purpose of the argument.

That's only because I doubt very much you took any time at all to actually understand the argument since you're too busy copying other people's work.

trulyenlightened wrote: 1. The argument doesn't seem to establish the existence of any particular God. Instead, we are left with
"unmoved movers","uncaused causes", "non contingent or necessary thing", "and a pinnacle of perfection".

Wrong.
There is no such thing as "any particular god" as if God is one of many, belonging to the class of gods. The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist.

On uniqueness alone, there can be one and only one unactualized actualizer for if there were 2 of them then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks. For if there were no distinguishing features then they would be absolutely identical and therefore one. But if there were distinguishing features then the one that lacks the feature would depend on the other to obtain that features. In other words, it is a potential that must be actualized. But if an entity has some potential then it fails to be the unactualized actualizer by definition. Therefore, there is only one God.

Note that all of God's attributes can be reasoned as such without having to refer to revelation, scripture, or anything but reason alone. This is what we call the doctrine of divine simplicity. You see Don, not only do we believe in the form simple to complex, we take to its extreme absolute simplicity.

trulyenlightened wrote: 2. The arguments have nothing directly in common with the personal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Wrong.
From reason alone we can deduce God's attributes of unity, immutability, timelessnes, incorporiality, omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, and absolute love. That is a precise description of the God of the Bible. But no one is discussing religion here so whay do you bring it up? (other than you didn't even attempt to think of the work you were transcribing).

trulyenlightened wrote:3. The arguments do not rule out polytheism, a single God, or a committee of Gods.

Wrong as already shown.

trulyenlightened wrote: 4. The cosmological argument doesn't prove the existence of a sentient God. it could be an old guy with a beard, Kermit
the Frog, a turtle, the flying spaghetti monster, or any of over a thousand other Deities.

Wrong on so many levels.
God's intelligence can be shown from many arguments, the least of which the argument from essence and existence. I won't list here because I intend to use it in the Aquinas thread so you'll just have to stay tuned.

All the other straw man nonsense are invalidated by vritue of their impossibility to be an unactualized actualizer as argued above.

trulyenlightened wrote: But there are two objections that are thought to be the real "nail in the coffin".

1. Aquinas may be wrong in his insistence that there can't be an infinite regress of anything. Aquinas takes it as a
given that there had to be a starting point for everything. Whether it's the movement of objects, the cause and
effects, or the creation of a contingent being. It is unclear WHY this is true, or WHY this has to be true. Of course if
infinite regress is allowed, his arguments begin to falls apart. This seems almost self-serving, and not established.

If you had bothered to actually read Aquinas you would have been utterly embarraced to consider such a straw man of an argument. Tell me though, does it not bother your sense of intellect at all that the very point that Aquinas explicitely affirms, i.e. than an infinite tempral causal series CANNOT be denied by reason alone, is the one you're assuming he uses in his argument? Don't you find that a little peculiar? Or is it possible you've misunderstand the argument?

Here, I will quote the relevant part where Aquinas denies it can be shown from reason that the universe is finite:

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (I:32:1. The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from "here" and "now"; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (I:19:3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

Note that last sentence. Aquinas thought so little for the finitude of the universe that he was afraid people will laugh at whoever uses it. And yet you believe that's what he used in his arguments. Do you really think one of the most brilliant thinkers of all time denies one thing to then turn around and use it in his argument? But then again, I have no reason to believe you've even bother to read any argument.

trulyenlightened wrote: 2. Aquinas's argument simple are self defeating. These arguments actually prove themselves wrong. If Aquinas is
right that everything was put into motion by something else, or that everything could not cause itself, then God should
be subject to those same stipulations, not exempted(special pleading). If God is exempt from those stipulations then
why can't other things be exempt as well? And if other things can exist without God being responsible for them,
then we don't need God to establish things in the first place. Totally self-defeating.

Wrong.
It is the classic straw man argument and it so trivially untrue that really, anyone who puts it forth ought to be banned from materialism. It is an embarressment and can be shown very simply by stating that, the theist's argument never, ever, EVER, EVER stated that EVERYTHING was put in motion by something else. On that fact alone, this stupidity fails.

The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion.

trulyenlightened wrote: Are you still with me so far. Please feel free to point out any specific flaws or errors(other than they're just plain wrong) in my logic so far?

Oh I know exactly where you are and have shown clearly and coherently where you (or whoever you choose to copy from) are wrong every step of the way.

trulyenlightened wrote: This is the only thread that I have. You do not have to visit or comment on it.

But someone has to show you the error of your ways so you're stuck with me bud.

Only WHAT I say is what is important. I do not claim to be all-knowing, so spare me your demeaning and personal attacks. I don't claim that what I say is the absolute truth. I only claim that what I say is consistent with what I observe and understand. So far you have done absolutely nothing to change that understanding. Is your only motive here to discredit, demean, and dismiss anything that I say? Do you believe that others may need your protection? There is a word to describe people who think like that. I have never been stalked and harassed for presenting intellectual and logical consistencies before. It takes more than just arrogance, insecurity, and a fragile ego, to appoint oneself as the chosen one to show me the errors of my way. There are many words to describe this kind of mindset, and none would mean being "intellectually honest". I could very well be wrong about any philosophical semantical mumbo jumbo that comes out of my mouth. Could you? That is where we are different. Hence, the constant avoidance, referrals, blatant misrepresentations, and logical fallacies, seems only to shift the burden of proof and save face. Yours is an argument that is entirely predicated on the fact that no one can prove a negative. No one can ever disprove that an immovable mover, uncaused cause, unactualized actualizer, etc., exists. Anymore than they can prove that they do exist. But NOT being able to prove that something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that something in fact does exist by default. The burden of proof is on you.

Can't I simply stipulate that I mostly agree with the principles of PSR? I avoid metaphysical and philosophical arguments, because there are no clear correct or incorrect arguments. It seems to be just endless defining, redefining of definition as they apply to words. It is a self-serving exercise in semantics, that seem to give an unwarranted perception of unnecessary complexity and importance to an argument. It seems to be a self-serving mental indulgence to confirm any preconceptual presuppositional bias. Fortunately, I have no preconceptions of PSR. I am not saying that there is no such thing as contingent facts(truth). Or, that contingent facts can't be anything otherwise than what they are. I'm saying that necessary facts(truths) can't be used to prove contingent facts, because necessary facts can't be anything other than what they are. Not only could there be more than just one necessary fact describing a single cause, but to determine which necessary cause resulted in the event would be impossible. I also agree with causality as well. All things are caused by something else. Nothing can cause itself. To me it is irrelevant what label you want to affix to the types of causation or facts. I also agree that PSR is fundamental in its use in the scientific method. Regarding your syllogism, we are talking about deductive logic. Your conclusion should be deduced from your premises. If not your premises are wrong. Therefore,

If A, B, and C are true(obtained), then I am sitting.
A, B, and C ARE true(obtained)
Therefore, I am sitting

By stating that you are not sitting, you contradict your deduction. Since you didn't define what A, B, and C were, how did you concluded that you are not sitting? Therefore, your premises and conclusion is false. I think I know what you are trying to say, using suppositions and assumptions, but you are just saying it so badly. The physical laws that govern our Universe can't be ignored, or replaced with gap-filling self-serving subjective logic. All explanations of physical or contingent causes, must obey these natural laws. No causal object or thing in the physical Universe, can possess zero entropy, zero energy, zero motion, or zero momentum, no matter what argument you wish to present. Even if an object or cause like this did exist, it could not exist in this Universe, let alone effect anything in this Universe. PSR is merely a logical series of proofs to justify causality, and possibly that the Universe had a beginning. Again, I have no problems with that.

AQUINAS

Let me put this in my own words, to avoid your silly distractions, avoidance, and to focus on anything other than the points I raised. I have said repeatedly that I only wish to talk about science to those that are interested in science. Or, to try and understand how science supports, or is supported by any religious belief. I am not a theologian or a philosopher. I generally stick to the things that I consider practical and useful. How do you know that, "The new atheist movement has sparked a renewed interest in natural philosophy, natural theology and classical theism for a reason"? Was there an old Atheist movement that with no interest in Philosophy, Theism, or Theology? Why would an Atheist expect to find answers in Theism? Any philosophy that can explain everything, explains nothing. It may be true that many atheist are concerned by the rationale of having Christian belief, becoming a part of the science curriculum, in the early education of our finest minds. They might be concerned about a violation of the separation of church and state, guaranteed by the Constitution. Other than simply asserting that I am mistaken, are you suggesting that God is NOT exempt from the premises asserted in the argument? Why is this NOT an argument from ignorance, and special pleading? Other than you simply asserting that it isn't? I'll ask again, "How do any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism"? Other than posting distractions, please answer the question?

I agree that by the definition of a God, there can be only ONE God. But there isn't is there? In fact there are 8-12,000 Gods who have been worshipped throughout recorded history. And, their worshipers felt the same way about their God(s), as you feel about your God. Do you know what was the best explanation I heard to account for this phenomenon? "They'll all find out that we are right and they are wrong, once they die". Maybe you can do better? "The unmoved mover, uncaused cause, non-contingent absolute necessity, unactualized actualizer is, by definition, absolutely unique whose essence IS his existence are identical and who is susbtistent existence itself that fails to not have existed nor to not exist". And just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you surprise me. You make up the assumption, that if two Gods exist, "then there must be some distinguishing feature that one has and the other lacks". How on earth could you know this, and aren't you ignoring the definition of a God. If a God is ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL, how could there exist a second God that is also ALL KNOWING and ALL POWERFUL? Remember your God is a jealous God, considering what he did to the Egyptian Gods. That makes as much sense as your assertion that weaker Gods have distinguishing attributes. If your made-up, "doctrine of divine simplicity", is exampled by "God did it all", then I agree that it is the ultimate in simplicity. Unfortunately, there is no where else to go from there, in regards to complexity. Since you claim that I am WRONG, please tell me how the argument distinguishes between, Zeus, Allah, Athena, Baku, or the Christian God? Since you can't, how am I wrong? Never mind, this will also be avoided as irrelevant.

You are correct I am not here to talk about religion and beliefs. Reason and logic are irrelevant, and not required in all matters of faith. Let me ask, did Aquinas state that there can't be an infinite regression of causality? Yes or No? Secondly, how does he, or you for that matter, know for certain that this is true? Why can't there exist a cause for all events regressing back towards infinity? Please no more "if you don't understand, I can't help you". Or, "Just another straw man argument". Since you're not pointing out the specific straw man, you are nothing more than a broken record of empty assertions. If we consider the infinite number of events necessary for you to lift and drop a pen, why not an infinite number of events for the birth of the Universe, and the Origin of Life? Never mind, I don't expect an answer.

Since you stated at the beginning that you would be addressing only what you consider as being relevant, the cherry-picking has begun. You explain nothing, you simply bark, bluff and blunder, and then try to bully your assertions down my throat. How does any of Aquinas's arguments prove Theism? They don't, without the assistance of a few subjective additions and conditions. Why does any unmoved mover, or uncaused causer have to be YOUR specific God? They don't, regardless of the imaginary and impossible attributes you label as being indicative of only your God? Why is any God exempt from the natural laws in Nature(special pleading)? How do you know this, and what evidence backs this up? "The actual argument, not this silly straw man version, actually terminates with an UNMOVED mover, UNCAUSED cause, UNACTUALIZED actualizer. In other words, it is the necessary conclusion of the argument, not some arbitrary assertion". What is amazing, is that you can't see how flawed your own logic is. Necessary for whom? Maybe only for those that disagree with you?

Anyone can make up anything they like. It may intuitively make perfect sense, and may even be logically sound. But this doesn't mean that it is true. All that I am saying, is that if you want to believe that this self-serving logic is sound and supports your belief, then that is none of my business. But from a scientific perspective it is unfalsifiable, fallacious, and unsound, no matter how many times you tell me that I just don't understand it. Don

It also seems that the only justification for claiming that infinite causation does not exist is CIRCULAR REASONING! Do you not claim that if there is no uncaused causer, immovable mover, or an unactualized actualizer, that nothing would exist? And, then you conclude that since everything we see does exist, then an immovable mover, an uncaused causer, and an unactualized actualizer, MUST also exist. This is your acceptable logic for dumping an infinite regress? Really? I would have just said "I don't know". It would have been infinitely more honest. Even if an unmoved mover, uncaused causer DID exists, you can't just replace them with God, and say you are right. That is what an argument from ignorance is. There is absolutely no connection between Aquinas's proofs for the existence of what you arbitrarily labeled as being "god(s), and any proof that proves that it is only your theist God(s) that exist. This is subjective supposition, confirmation bias, and just wishful thinking. But it definitely "Ain't" Science! Don

LOL !!!
Edward Feser just face palmed !!

PaulSacramento wrote:LOL !!!
Edward Feser just face palmed !!

After or before he checks his bank balance? And to think I actually gave you a "thumbs-up". Don

Honestly, I seems that you simply don't understand Aquinas argument at all.
Please explain how something contingent ( something that is caused by something else to come into existence) can have as itself, the cause for it's own existence.

PaulSacramento wrote:Honestly, I seems that you simply don't understand Aquinas argument at all.
Please explain how something contingent ( something that is caused by something else to come into existence) can have as itself, the cause for it's own existence.

At least you didn't disappoint me by simply asserting that I just don't understand "Aquinas". Please address why you would even think that I would believe that something could create itself, without a cause? Or point out anything in my posts that would suggest that I believe that something could create itself? As I have stated before, all contingent things have a cause as far as I know. I even highlighted my issue with contingent and necessary facts, to avoid these irrelevant and tangential relationships. Let me repeat my concerns, and maybe this time you might make a more relevant response? I will highlight the relevant points that you might want to focus on. "I'm saying that necessary facts(truths) can't be used to prove contingent facts(here comes the first reasons), because necessary facts can't be anything other than what they are. (here comes the second)Not only could there be more than just one necessary fact describing a single cause, but(and the third reason) to determine which necessary cause resulted in the event would be impossible.

When you have finished reconciling my concerns with this necessary/contingent relationship, you might want to tackle the circular reasoning fallacy, justifying the dismissal of infinite regression. You remember, right? Since we are all here, there must have been a beginning(start, cause, movement, etc.). Because without a beginning, we would all not be here. Therefore, infinite regression is impossible.

So, will it just be more of the same, "you just don't understand Aquinas", straw man accusations, or address everything other than the specific concerns I raise(avoidance)? Or maybe for once you all will stop making excuses, and address my concerns. I'm no philosophical expert in metaphysical logic, but I can still call a spade a spade, no matter how many different handles you put on it. Don