Logic lessons for Jak and Marg
-
_Aquinas
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm
Jak, you are missing the point entirely. I think all the hype about one sentence taken out of context has confused you, I want to believe you are a reasonable person, so let's see.
The original statement that was attacked by Marg was:
Here is the entirety of what I wrote in context to comments made by fake David Bednar in the "I will try not to offend" thread:
It was addressed to an audience I believed, at the time, was primarily Mormon. Yes Mormons don't profess belief in the same God I do and yes I didn't demonstrate that God exists, or define my terms. Again, I don't need to define terms, if terms are generally accepted as true by an audience, and even if they are not, the burden of proof lies on those questioning the soundness to prove why it is wrong. See my scientist example at the beginning of this thread. My original statement, given the context, was obviously more of a plea to Mormons reading to not listen to their authorities if what the authorities teach is not consistent with reason, and I appealed to God, since Mormons at least claim belief in Christian God (insisting that they are a Christian religion is proof enough for that). Indeed, in my original statement, the validity is even questionable, since terms were not defined. Later, Marg attacked the statement in question by posting this:
In order to show Marg that her argument was not reflective of mine, I explained the meaning of my original sentence more thoroughly:
This is valid and logical, even if you don't find it at all compelling. The problem now is, that you Jak, charged the conclusion in this argument as being invalid, and Marg later patted you on the back for it:
This is a misunderstanding of logic. Not establishing truth in a major premise has nothing to do with validity, because validity is about an argument's form; your problem is with soundness. If you would have accused my argument of not demonstrating anything true, because the soundness cannot be know with ill defined terms, I would conceed that you are right. By saying the premises are nonsense, or false, you imply that you know the meaning of the terms already, and the burden of proving this accusation lies on you. Marg accused the premises as being nonsense many times. She has yet to demonstrate why. She also accused the argument as not being logical, but the valid form of the argument is what makes it deductive logic, it does not depend on whether the premises are true.
What I want to know is this: why am I not allowed to write assertions in deductive order, when Marg is allowed to make comments like this (this was taken from a different thread than the one already cited):
She notes she hadn't read anything I wrote, but yet she asserts she guarantees my argument wasn't sound. How is that not a lack of evidence? At least my statement incorporated some amount of logic, this is just a blind assertion. When I pushed Marg on this issue, she presented her evidence for making such a guarantee:
Wow. That utter drivel coming from someone condeming people who appeal to the Bible, and condeming me for a statement I made about true things leading to God? She appeals to newspapers as her source of truth! Marg is a hypocrite, she expects solid evidence of all assertions made by a Christian, yet she herself presents evidence as nonesensical as this, to support her "guarantee." Remember, Marg sought my posts out, she is the one attacking me, I have been on the defensive. Given this statement she made, I wouldn't doubt if I could go through these threads and pull out more bunk assertions unsupported by any evidence at all that Marg has made, but I won't. I'm not as petty as she, I'm sure the assertions she has made in her lifetime were directed to people that she believed to be of like mind on the issues. Jak, you wrote of deciept? Who is decieving who, when the fact that my original post (in response to fake Bednar) is continually ignored as being the catalyist for this debate that Marg started. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS CLEARLY NOT MEANT TO PROVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE! I know that. I never claimed that my statement proved existence in God, that all goodness comes from God or that all truth is good. My use of the word "therefore" was legitimate because it was demonstrating deductive order, if you accept the premises, you are "therefore" forced to accept the conclusion. It is obvious the premises were assertions that weren't established with evidence, do you both want medals for pointing this out?
It is obvious that the only thing offending Marg is that she does not like the idea of "God" being a subject of logic and reason. Get over it Marg, you may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean that you can belittle believers into believing their thinking is inferior to yours. Yes, there is much evidence to support belief in God (T. Aquinas), Marg refuses to read it. Again, I appeal to your reasonable nature Jak to give this post consideration. Thank you and God bless. [/quote]
The original statement that was attacked by Marg was:
If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good. God is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to God.
Here is the entirety of what I wrote in context to comments made by fake David Bednar in the "I will try not to offend" thread:
David is boring. He has no humility before God, which is expected since he does not know who God is. David, you are in my prayers. May God bless you and may you come to know who the one true God is. As for anyone else reading, do not fear the truth. If God is all good, then truth must lead to God, since all truth is good. God is all good, therefore, all truth must lead to God. Our human reason is a primary faculty for knowing truth, so do not abandon it for the blind obidience that is being asked of you by the Mormon church. Reason is from God, since God created us. It should not contradict your faith, but rather be employed with faith to know God.
It was addressed to an audience I believed, at the time, was primarily Mormon. Yes Mormons don't profess belief in the same God I do and yes I didn't demonstrate that God exists, or define my terms. Again, I don't need to define terms, if terms are generally accepted as true by an audience, and even if they are not, the burden of proof lies on those questioning the soundness to prove why it is wrong. See my scientist example at the beginning of this thread. My original statement, given the context, was obviously more of a plea to Mormons reading to not listen to their authorities if what the authorities teach is not consistent with reason, and I appealed to God, since Mormons at least claim belief in Christian God (insisting that they are a Christian religion is proof enough for that). Indeed, in my original statement, the validity is even questionable, since terms were not defined. Later, Marg attacked the statement in question by posting this:
I love your use of deductive logic Aquinas, it's so easy to be mis-used or used disingenously in order to fallaciously prove whatever one wants. Let's see,
God is all good,
truth is all good,
Therefore god = truth. or to put in your words truth leads to God.
Unfortunately though, nothing has been proven. The truth of your conclusion is dependent upon the truth of the premises!
All you've done is created a proof based on a personal definition. You've defined God as "all good" You've not proven true God is all good, let alone even proven a god exists who could be all good. So your premises have not been proven true. And your conclusion can not be relied upon.
let's see:
If chocolate cake with whipped cream is all good
and truth is all good,
Threfore chocolate cake with whipped cream is truth.
In order to show Marg that her argument was not reflective of mine, I explained the meaning of my original sentence more thoroughly:
If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things. Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:
1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God
This is valid and logical, even if you don't find it at all compelling. The problem now is, that you Jak, charged the conclusion in this argument as being invalid, and Marg later patted you on the back for it:
Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”
This is a misunderstanding of logic. Not establishing truth in a major premise has nothing to do with validity, because validity is about an argument's form; your problem is with soundness. If you would have accused my argument of not demonstrating anything true, because the soundness cannot be know with ill defined terms, I would conceed that you are right. By saying the premises are nonsense, or false, you imply that you know the meaning of the terms already, and the burden of proving this accusation lies on you. Marg accused the premises as being nonsense many times. She has yet to demonstrate why. She also accused the argument as not being logical, but the valid form of the argument is what makes it deductive logic, it does not depend on whether the premises are true.
What I want to know is this: why am I not allowed to write assertions in deductive order, when Marg is allowed to make comments like this (this was taken from a different thread than the one already cited):
I haven't been following this discussion, nor seen your sound argument for the oneness of God.
But deductive reasoning which you are illustrating here is only as good as the truth of the premises relied upon.
I can guarantee you have presented no sound argument for the oneness of God in the sense of a reality of a God. What you may have presented is an argument which uses the Bible as authority and the premise that a god exists as well as particulars for that god, is assumed true based upon the claims within the Bible. That doesn't mean the premises which you supplied are really true, in the sense of being a reflection of the world we all experience and observe.
She notes she hadn't read anything I wrote, but yet she asserts she guarantees my argument wasn't sound. How is that not a lack of evidence? At least my statement incorporated some amount of logic, this is just a blind assertion. When I pushed Marg on this issue, she presented her evidence for making such a guarantee:
if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently.
Wow. That utter drivel coming from someone condeming people who appeal to the Bible, and condeming me for a statement I made about true things leading to God? She appeals to newspapers as her source of truth! Marg is a hypocrite, she expects solid evidence of all assertions made by a Christian, yet she herself presents evidence as nonesensical as this, to support her "guarantee." Remember, Marg sought my posts out, she is the one attacking me, I have been on the defensive. Given this statement she made, I wouldn't doubt if I could go through these threads and pull out more bunk assertions unsupported by any evidence at all that Marg has made, but I won't. I'm not as petty as she, I'm sure the assertions she has made in her lifetime were directed to people that she believed to be of like mind on the issues. Jak, you wrote of deciept? Who is decieving who, when the fact that my original post (in response to fake Bednar) is continually ignored as being the catalyist for this debate that Marg started. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS CLEARLY NOT MEANT TO PROVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE! I know that. I never claimed that my statement proved existence in God, that all goodness comes from God or that all truth is good. My use of the word "therefore" was legitimate because it was demonstrating deductive order, if you accept the premises, you are "therefore" forced to accept the conclusion. It is obvious the premises were assertions that weren't established with evidence, do you both want medals for pointing this out?
It is obvious that the only thing offending Marg is that she does not like the idea of "God" being a subject of logic and reason. Get over it Marg, you may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean that you can belittle believers into believing their thinking is inferior to yours. Yes, there is much evidence to support belief in God (T. Aquinas), Marg refuses to read it. Again, I appeal to your reasonable nature Jak to give this post consideration. Thank you and God bless. [/quote]
-
_marg
Aquinas,
Huh, patted JAK on the back? I haven't responded to JAK's posts on this. Once again, just because an argument is put into valid form does not make it logical. To be logical you want to be able to rely upon the conclusion's claim, to rely that it is true. If any of your premises are ambiquous, or words are not understood it is a fallacious argument, it's not a valid deductive argument.
Aquinas, go back to Bednar's thread and find where I say your argument is invalid...I don't I say it's nonsense because you've not established what any of your terms mean. You had said previously "God is all good" and I used that to show an invalid form with that being the first premise.
Besides the fact that your words are ambiguous and no reliable conclusion can be reached from them, you havne't even put your argument into a deductive valid form which can be translated into symbols. If you have what form is it?
In order to show Marg that her argument was not reflective of mine, I explained the meaning of my original sentence more thoroughly:
Quote:
If in God, all goodness resides (thus to say of an object "A" that it is good, means that it participates in God's goodness in some way) and truth is good, then truth necessarily leads to God, since in God all goodness resides. The goodness of truth itself is found by following true things. Thus, given these explainations, here is an argument:
1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God
This is valid and logical, even if you don't find it at all compelling. The problem now is, that you Jak, charged the conclusion in this argument as being invalid, and Marg later patted you on the back for it:
Huh, patted JAK on the back? I haven't responded to JAK's posts on this. Once again, just because an argument is put into valid form does not make it logical. To be logical you want to be able to rely upon the conclusion's claim, to rely that it is true. If any of your premises are ambiquous, or words are not understood it is a fallacious argument, it's not a valid deductive argument.
Aquinas, go back to Bednar's thread and find where I say your argument is invalid...I don't I say it's nonsense because you've not established what any of your terms mean. You had said previously "God is all good" and I used that to show an invalid form with that being the first premise.
Besides the fact that your words are ambiguous and no reliable conclusion can be reached from them, you havne't even put your argument into a deductive valid form which can be translated into symbols. If you have what form is it?
-
_marg
Aquinas wrote:
marg: "I can guarantee you have presented no sound argument for the oneness of God in the sense of a reality of a God. What you may have presented is an argument which uses the Bible as authority and the premise that a god exists as well as particulars for that god, is assumed true based upon the claims within the Bible. That doesn't mean the premises which you supplied are really true, in the sense of being a reflection of the world we all experience and observe."
She notes she hadn't read anything I wrote, but yet she asserts she guarantees my argument wasn't sound. How is that not a lack of evidence? At least my statement incorporated some amount of logic, this is just a blind assertion. When I pushed Marg on this issue, she presented her evidence for making such a guarantee:
"if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently."
The reasoning I gave you Aquinas is inductive reasoning.. I wrote previously: If you are going to argue for the existence of a God it can not be something hidden up in your mind or the minds of select individuals who are not able to offer this evidence for all to examine should they so wish. As in the scientific method process, it has to be open to independent objective evaluation and/or verification. Since God is of interest to many people, if a God could be proven, the newspapers around the world would be interested in the news. I haven’t heard anything recently.
So the reasoning is that extraordinary news, which is of interest to people, based my observations is likely to be with extremely high probability in the news. So for practical purposes I willingly go out on a limb in some situations. For example if I turn on the news tomorrow and nothing is said about President Bush being shot/killed I can safely assume, go out on a limb that he's alive and hasn't been shot.
God's existence proven, would be of such extraordinary news to people that if somehow God was proven to exist, I can safely assume for operational purposes, it would be in the news.
-
_marg
I don't get the impression you've actually read JAK's posts to you Aquinas.
I'll continue addressing what you wrote JAK
Conclusion are never valid as far as in formal deductive logic. Don't assume JAK doesn't appreciate formal deductive logic. Look at what he wrote:
JAK : "Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”"
Invalid means "falsely based or reasoned" in the context he used it. It is irrelevant that you create an argument in valid deductive form. If your argument and words used are ambiguous which most certainly your argument & words used are/were..it's invalid. It's falsely reasoned. What for example does it mean to say "Truth is good". It's meaningless, unless you are willing to define your terms clearly.
Don't think Aquinas that I don't appreciate validity in deductive reasoning. I do understand formal reasoning. And while you may think you have presented your argument into a deductive formal valid form ..you have not. If you think you have, please tell us what form it is.
Validity is not restricted to one meaning Aquinas and because I have been reading JAK's posts for years I appreciate how he used the word.
Aquinas, why should it be a burden of proof on others to prove terms are ambiguous by those who present an argument. . I pointed out to you in the Bednar thread that your terms didn't make sense. What do mean by truth, good, goodness, God? Those are your terms and if you are asked to define clearly what you mean by them, it is your responsibility to do so. Otherwise your argument fails. And this is not solely about the term God, it's also about all your ambiguous terms truth, good, goodness also need to be defined in the context you intend them.
Ok Aquinas let's look at the definition of "logical" from answers.com (I'll skip #2)
1)Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2) Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
The goal of logic is to reach best approximations to true and reliable conclusions. The goal of logic is not to plug nonsense or ambiguous words into a format and think you've presented some sort of reasoning of value. In deductive reasoning...in which arguments are translated into formal valid structure, the only thing ever proved is if in that structure a conclusion can be relied upon as being true and that only happens when the premises are true and clearly understood. If there is a problem with the premises, be it the premises aren't true, or the words are ambiguous, nothing can be determined about the conclusion. It might be true, it might be false, but it can not be determined.
So presenting any argument with false premises, with ambiguously worded premises in a valid deductive structured argument is meaningless, it's irrelevant, it's not logical, it serves no purpose for any sort of reasoning with regards to the conclusion. The goal of deductive logic is to find a means to be able to rely upon the truth of the conclusion.
I'll continue addressing what you wrote JAK
Aquinas wrote:This is valid and logical, even if you don't find it at all compelling. The problem now is, that you Jak, charged the conclusion in this argument as being invalid, and Marg later patted you on the back for it:
Conclusion are never valid as far as in formal deductive logic. Don't assume JAK doesn't appreciate formal deductive logic. Look at what he wrote:
JAK : "Right. And Aquinas established nothing. Superb analysis -- that if the major premise is not established, the conclusion is invalid. And, your correct “(Aquinas’) conclusion can not be relied upon.”"
Invalid means "falsely based or reasoned" in the context he used it. It is irrelevant that you create an argument in valid deductive form. If your argument and words used are ambiguous which most certainly your argument & words used are/were..it's invalid. It's falsely reasoned. What for example does it mean to say "Truth is good". It's meaningless, unless you are willing to define your terms clearly.
Don't think Aquinas that I don't appreciate validity in deductive reasoning. I do understand formal reasoning. And while you may think you have presented your argument into a deductive formal valid form ..you have not. If you think you have, please tell us what form it is.
This is a misunderstanding of logic. Not establishing truth in a major premise has nothing to do with validity, because validity is about an argument's form; your problem is with soundness.
Validity is not restricted to one meaning Aquinas and because I have been reading JAK's posts for years I appreciate how he used the word.
If you would have accused my argument of not demonstrating anything true, because the soundness cannot be know with ill defined terms, I would conceed that you are right. By saying the premises are nonsense, or false, you imply that you know the meaning of the terms already, and the burden of proving this accusation lies on you.
Aquinas, why should it be a burden of proof on others to prove terms are ambiguous by those who present an argument. . I pointed out to you in the Bednar thread that your terms didn't make sense. What do mean by truth, good, goodness, God? Those are your terms and if you are asked to define clearly what you mean by them, it is your responsibility to do so. Otherwise your argument fails. And this is not solely about the term God, it's also about all your ambiguous terms truth, good, goodness also need to be defined in the context you intend them.
Those who make the claim Marg accused the premises as being nonsense many times. She has yet to demonstrate why. She also accused the argument as not being logical, but the valid form of the argument is what makes it deductive logic, it does not depend on whether the premises are true.
Ok Aquinas let's look at the definition of "logical" from answers.com (I'll skip #2)
1)Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2) Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
The goal of logic is to reach best approximations to true and reliable conclusions. The goal of logic is not to plug nonsense or ambiguous words into a format and think you've presented some sort of reasoning of value. In deductive reasoning...in which arguments are translated into formal valid structure, the only thing ever proved is if in that structure a conclusion can be relied upon as being true and that only happens when the premises are true and clearly understood. If there is a problem with the premises, be it the premises aren't true, or the words are ambiguous, nothing can be determined about the conclusion. It might be true, it might be false, but it can not be determined.
So presenting any argument with false premises, with ambiguously worded premises in a valid deductive structured argument is meaningless, it's irrelevant, it's not logical, it serves no purpose for any sort of reasoning with regards to the conclusion. The goal of deductive logic is to find a means to be able to rely upon the truth of the conclusion.
-
_marg
Aquinas:
I embrace the idea of God being a subject of logic and reason Aquinas and I'm not offended. You seem to think you or your philosopher guru Aquinas can reason a God, your's and his particular God into existence. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but a God which is something more than the figment of your's or anyone else's imagination can not be reasoned into existence absent transparent evidence. That appears to offend you. I'm sorry to do that. But I'm only presenting to you logic and reasoning regarding your God belief.
"It is obvious that the only thing offending Marg is that she does not like the idea of "God" being a subject of logic and reason. Get over it Marg, you may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean that you can belittle believers into believing their thinking is inferior to yours. Yes, there is much evidence to support belief in God (T. Aquinas), Marg refuses to read it. Again, I appeal to your reasonable nature Jak to give this post consideration. Thank you and God bless."
I embrace the idea of God being a subject of logic and reason Aquinas and I'm not offended. You seem to think you or your philosopher guru Aquinas can reason a God, your's and his particular God into existence. I'm sorry to have to inform you of this but a God which is something more than the figment of your's or anyone else's imagination can not be reasoned into existence absent transparent evidence. That appears to offend you. I'm sorry to do that. But I'm only presenting to you logic and reasoning regarding your God belief.
-
_marg
Aquinas wrote: I'm not as petty as she, I'm sure the assertions she has made in her lifetime were directed to people that she believed to be of like mind on the issues. Jak, you wrote of deciept? Who is decieving who, when the fact that my original post (in response to fake Bednar) is continually ignored as being the catalyist for this debate that Marg started. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS CLEARLY NOT MEANT TO PROVE ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE! I know that. I never claimed that my statement proved existence in God, that all goodness comes from God or that all truth is good. My use of the word "therefore" was legitimate because it was demonstrating deductive order, if you accept the premises, you are "therefore" forced to accept the conclusion. It is obvious the premises were assertions that weren't established with evidence, do you both want medals for pointing this out?
I bolded your words above, Aquinas. You say "if you accept the premises you are therefore forced to accept the conclusion. "
And what was my first sentence to you Aquinas? I wrote: " I love your use of deductive logic Aquinas, it's so easy to be mis-used or used disingenously in order to fallaciously prove whatever one wants.
In other words Aquinas, it's quite probable that individuals might be bamboozled through fallacious reasoning via the presentation of deductive form logic in argumentation and think that good reasoning has been employed to say something logical, meaningful and true. Apparently it's worked on you and you think it should work on others. I think in your case you are misusing deductive formal logic, I think in the real Aquinas's case he was probably disingenuously using it.
-
_marg
Re: Marg Is Correct, Aquinas Is Not
JAK wrote: Even the form for the syllogism is incorrect which Aquinas submitted. Let’s look:
Aquinas constructed:
1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God
Well he's trying to fit it into the form AAA-1. (known as barbara)
Where M = middle term in the premises
S =is subject in the conclusion
P = predicate in conclusion
All M is P
All S is M
therefore All S is P
An example: All Greeks are human
All Athenians are Greeks
Therefore All Athenians are human
He hasn't presented it in a form which can be put into symbols and represents classes of things and includes the copula.
Ignoring for the moment that he hasn't even presented it in proper valid deductive form, his reasoning is still flawed.
As you (JAK)point out to Aquinas: " Your syllogism is irrelevant to the challenge to establish the claim God. Absent clear, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis regarding any God claims, your syllogism is irrelevant.
Here is why. If the major premise is false or in the slightest flawed, the conclusion is flawed. You have not established “God”.
It’s the major premise in your syllogisms which you fail to establish. Failure in that makes any conclusion derived from the major premise unreliable.
A most important dimension of rational thinking (logic) is transparency. Understanding and agreement upon definitions is critical. A syllogism may be useful if there is genuine transparency. Generally, a syllogism has dissimilarities to what is being characterized. That’s an inherent weakness of any syllogism. "
-
_marg
I took a look at your Aquinas proof for God
Aquinas:
At link http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm T. Aquinas' argument for God's existence: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways".
Without going into details of the argument but looking at the conclusion of each I'll present an objection.
1) Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
He assumes there must be a first mover, but with that logic something had to have been moved to create the theoretical first mover. He hasn't eliminated the problem, by asserting there must have been a first mover and none before. His assertion is unwarranted.
2) Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
This is the same problem as above. He asserts that an entity God is a first cause, yet it doesn't explain what caused God.
3) Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Once again, he's not eliminated the problem of what caused/created a God/creator.
4) Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
He makes an assumption that goodness in people must be caused by a supreme entity called God. What is considered good is relative depending on one's perception. But the reasoning is a leap to a conclusion, with no evidence to warrant that leap. And what exactly is so good about people?
5) Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
It's the same problem as previously, if an intelligent being needs a creator then what created God? The problem is not solved by leaping to a conclusion that a God/creator exists.
Now Aquinas, I'm not saying a creator does not exist. Nor do I find much objection to those who believe in a creator. What I find greatest objection to is religious claims reqarding pretended knowledge unsupportable with transparent evidence of what a God does, says, believes, likes, wants, thinks, looks like, where he/she/it lives, and money he/she it needs etc. And of course the same applies to supernatural claims of an afterlife and to any mythical stories and figures in religious claims.
It is obvious that the only thing offending Marg is that she does not like the idea of "God" being a subject of logic and reason. Get over it Marg, you may not believe in God, but it doesn't mean that you can belittle believers into believing their thinking is inferior to yours. Yes, there is much evidence to support belief in God (T. Aquinas), Marg refuses to read it.
At link http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm T. Aquinas' argument for God's existence: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways".
Without going into details of the argument but looking at the conclusion of each I'll present an objection.
1) Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
He assumes there must be a first mover, but with that logic something had to have been moved to create the theoretical first mover. He hasn't eliminated the problem, by asserting there must have been a first mover and none before. His assertion is unwarranted.
2) Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
This is the same problem as above. He asserts that an entity God is a first cause, yet it doesn't explain what caused God.
3) Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Once again, he's not eliminated the problem of what caused/created a God/creator.
4) Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
He makes an assumption that goodness in people must be caused by a supreme entity called God. What is considered good is relative depending on one's perception. But the reasoning is a leap to a conclusion, with no evidence to warrant that leap. And what exactly is so good about people?
5) Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
It's the same problem as previously, if an intelligent being needs a creator then what created God? The problem is not solved by leaping to a conclusion that a God/creator exists.
Now Aquinas, I'm not saying a creator does not exist. Nor do I find much objection to those who believe in a creator. What I find greatest objection to is religious claims reqarding pretended knowledge unsupportable with transparent evidence of what a God does, says, believes, likes, wants, thinks, looks like, where he/she/it lives, and money he/she it needs etc. And of course the same applies to supernatural claims of an afterlife and to any mythical stories and figures in religious claims.
-
_Aquinas
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:09 pm
Re: Marg Is Correct, Aquinas Is Not
1. In God all goodness resides
2. all truth is good and
3. Therefore, truth leads to God
Well he's trying to fit it into the form AAA-1. (known as barbara)
Where M = middle term in the premises
S =is subject in the conclusion
P = predicate in conclusion
All M is P
All S is M
therefore All S is P
An example: All Greeks are human
All Athenians are Greeks
Therefore All Athenians are human
He hasn't presented it in a form which can be put into symbols and represents classes of things and includes the copula.
Ignoring for the moment that he hasn't even presented it in proper valid deductive form
This is actually a good criticism, well done Marg. Indeed, under closer inspection, I can see my form was still somewhat sloppy. I would still like to point out when I originally posted the sentence I had no idea it would face such scrutiny, if I had actually been arguing for something, I would have been more careful.
However, during your posts in response to mine, the original meaning of my post was stripped, because you constructed a strawman in an attempt to make it seem like I was trying to prove that all truth comes from God and I merely negelected to establish first principles (i.e. that God exists). My original post to Bednar was taken out of the context of being addressed to a Mormon audience, who claim belief in God and claim that truth is a good thing. You still have not owned up to that.