This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
It seems to me that the more pertinent issue with Aquinas is that he relies on the Meta-physics of Aristotle, especially his ideas of causation and change. Now we know that Aristotle logically extended his Meta-physics to generate his Physics and we know that his Physics was wrong. Therefore we know that his Meta-physics was wrong. Thus, none of the conclusions that Aquinas comes to are sound.
What is wrong with Aristotle's physics, exactly? He still certainly has defenders. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/final-causality-and-aristotles-unmoved.html
Well, I'm sure that someone with more knowledge of Aristotle could come up with more issues but the famous errors are:-he predicts that a heavy object will fall faster than a light object-he predicts that you can not have a vacuum -he predicts that the physical laws in space are different than the laws on Earth.
But these seem to be results of empirical investigation, which contradicted him. But, for example, does this in any way invalidate what he believed about, say virtue? Nor does it undermine, it seems to me, the four-cause analysis. Not knowing what the actual causes are is different from not knowing what types of causes they are.
The four causes of Aristotle have no place in modern physics because they do not serve to explain how things change. Even the concept of efficient cause is fatally flawed. The reality is much more complex. There is never one single thing or a 'chain' of things that constitute an efficient cause for some particular event. Aristotle's understanding of physics is just plain wrong.
"famous errors"Hmm... Let's examine these so-called "errors":- he predicts that a heavy object will fall faster than a light objectBut it will.. as long as the objects being dropped are within the Earth's atmosphere, where air friction will slow the fall of the lighter object more than for the heavy one. (Thus, a feather falls more slowly than a billiard ball.)-he predicts that you can not have a vacuumUh.. That one is true on its face. After all, every last cubic inch of "space" is filled with light from all the stars and galaxies of the universe. There is literally no place where you cannot observe the rest of the universe. Additionally, the effects of gravity are present everywhere. Light is "something" and so is gravity - therefore there is no place in the universe which is "empty" (i.e., a vacuum).-he predicts that the physical laws in space are different than the laws on EarthBut there are places in "space" where the physical laws are quite different than they are here on the surface of the Earth. Within the event horizon of a black hole, for instance.So, what "errors"?Jezu, ufam tobie!
@B. ProkopSo, even when he is somewhat correct, it is for mistaken reasons.
Aristotle's four causes is akin to the four Medical Humours: sanguine, choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic, all of them determined by the types of fluid that flowed in the body.Aristotle's four causes must only be looked at in the context of his times, just as the four Humours do not have any relevance in medicine or medical practice today. To apply them out of context is to indulge and wallow in Thomistic theology.
Coming back to the question: "Is there an argument for the necessary existence of God?"Nope.
Come now, Linton. Your answer "nope" simply indicates that you disagree with the argument. It says nothing about the existence of said argument. So as long as someone has put forth an argument, whether or not you agree with it, you cannot answer the question "Is there an argument for the existence of God?" other than in the affirmative.People have put forth arguments in favor of the invasion of Iraq. I don't agree with the arguments (I was a vehement opponent of the war), but that does not mean such arguments don't exist.Jezu, ufam tobie!
Evidently, Papalinton was answering the question in the same spirit in which it was asked.
Post a Comment