Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Refutation of Aquinas' First Way! :(

**Posted by iwpoe** 3/05/2016 10:44 am

I've emailed him. We'll see.

**Posted by AKG** 3/05/2016 3:04 pm

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?

**Posted by Timocrates** 3/05/2016 4:37 pm

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.

**Posted by Timocrates** 3/05/2016 4:39 pm

Incessable wrote:
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?

**Posted by iwpoe** 3/06/2016 2:13 pm

We're having a conversation about how we could collaborate on it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxMqpO75iGE0RmdzWU1lREtMTnM/view?usp=sharing

**Posted by Dennis** 3/06/2016 2:44 pm

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.

**Posted by Incessable** 3/11/2016 11:27 pm

Timocrates wrote:
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.