- iwpoe
- Member
Offline 
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
I've emailed him. We'll see.
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
Y'know I can never understand why people like this try to use the unreliability of our senses as a refutation of the argument. I mean doesn't this mean that the science they love so much which relies on our senses in the first place is undermined by this line of reasoning?
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
AKG wrote:
Y'know I can never understand why people like this try to use the unreliability of our senses as a refutation of the argument. I mean doesn't this mean that the science they love so much which relies on our senses in the first place is undermined by this line of reasoning?
Yes and more so seeing as A-T doesn't rely on the senses nearly as much as modern science does. Not even remotely. We could be living in the Matrix and it would still serve as a metaphysical proof.
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- Timocrates
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/06/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
I'm a theist but I have never found any of Aquinas' Five Ways convincing. But the problem with this guy, is if you want to counter an argument, you look for the weakest premise and attack there. Instead, he feels the need to attack every premise, even the most obvious like "Our senses prove that some things are in motion". He is just wasting his time arguing that "oh, but can we be sure that motion is really there?". Attack the most controversial/non-obvious/non-trivial premise(s), and leave the obvious/trivial premises alone
Hello Incess, may I ask why you find the argument from motion unconvincing? I mean, what is it that gives you cause to doubt the argument?
"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).
Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
- iwpoe
- Member
Offline
- From: Knoxville, TN
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 1,080
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
We're having a conversation about how we could collaborate on it:
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
- Dennis
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 348
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
Deconverted Man, before you can assess St. Thomas's arguments from Motion, you need to do more than just looking at links, you need to learn a foundry of metaphysics...good luck to you iwpoe.
- Incessable
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/03/2016
- Posts: 18
Re: Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(
Hello Incess, may I ask why you find the argument from motion unconvincing? I mean, what is it that gives you cause to doubt the argument?
Two basic reasons:
1) It relies a lot on A-T metaphysics, and I'm unconvinced that the categories which A-T metaphysics claims to be foundational actually are as foundational as A-T metaphysics claims. I'm also unconvinced that an A-T theory of causation is the correct one; I incline more towards a Humean analysis of causation; if we substitute A-T causation with Humean causation, I don't think the argument works any more
2) I'm doubtful of cosmological arguments in general. To work, cosmological arguments rely on some variant of the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) to be justifiable independently of belief in God. (The "argument from motion" presumes a specific form of PSR.) I believe that PSR is true, but I believe in PSR because I believe in God, when I used to be an atheist I denied PSR. So, cosmological arguments try to proceed, PSR therefore God, whereas I believe the correct logical order is God therefore PSR.
Neither point is a refutation of the argument from motion. I don't claim to be able to refute it. I'm saying that I'm not convinced that it is a sound argument, which is distinct from claiming to be able to prove it to be unsound.