Posts
There is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.
This proof, as St. Thomas makes clear, is originally from Plato. If we are able to evaluate one thing as better than another, Plato argues, this implies some absolute standard of goodness against which both can be measured. The relative implies the absolute quantity.
At first glance, this does not seem right. After all, the fact that we can measure a field and find it a furlong, does not imply that there is some being of maximum length against which we are measuring it. Any other entity of relative length—a yardstick, for example—will do.
But to grasp what St. Thomas and Plato and Aristotle are actually saying, I think, you need to grasp the idea of the ideal form (or, to use Aritotle’s term, the “category”). Plato is saying that in order to perceive some quality such as length, as distinct from a long object, and therefore to measure it, there must be an independently existing entity which is length itself, independent of all individual lengths. To perceive relative heats, we must be aware at some level of an absolute entity, heat itself.
Francis Bacon proposed that these things could actually be abstracted from the physical world itself, from repeated experience. This claim has, I think, been definitely exploded, in philosophical terms. Ideas cannot spontaneously generate themselves out of stones and stars. We start with the idea, and then test and measure the stones and stars against it (and it against them); this can even be shown to be true by practical experiment.
Now the quality of goodness or the quality of quality must itself have its pre-existing, eternal paradigm. That is God; by definition.
8 comments:
Again, when you are dispossessd by religion, the flaws in St. Thomas' argument are as clear as crystal.
First, there is no ultimate truth because knowledge is infinite. Thus, no matter what level of "truth" or "good" we reach, we can always do better. In fact, improvement of existence gives us meaning in life; without the prospect of learning new things and improving our situation, life would become meaningless: we might as well evolve into something inanimate, like a rock.
Again, even if ther was such a thing as perfection, there is no proof it's a god. Again, Aquinas was assuming his anteceedent.
And now that I think about it, if imagining a perfect state is all it takes to proove God's existence, I could imagine an entity more perfect than the notion of a god (ie an entity that is not jealous, wrathful, sadistic etc.).
What do you want to do now, Steve, start a new religion? (Just joking.)
As for your notion of a quality independent of "length," that goes beyond the actual measurements, it's right in the dictonary.
As for where ideas come from, they come from neurons.
We can't blame those of antiquity for finding profound sense in the myth of religion. Plato did not know how stars were made, he did not know the theory of evolution. Thus, we can't blame him for coming to false conclusions, no matter how brilliant they were.
Steve, you do have access to said knowledge, so, what's your excuse? I know, I know, you've been brainwashed. You can not accept your mortality and want to live in a paradise forever.
Well, paradise would be hell because you'd have nothing to exist for.
EJ:
Again, when you are dispossessd by religion, the flaws in St. Thomas' argument are as clear as crystal.
First, there is no ultimate truth because knowledge is infinite.
SR:
Good one, Jeff. “There is no ultimate truth.” That statement, to be meaningful, must itself be ultimately false. For it cannot, without self-contradiction, be ultimately true.
You have stumbled into the classic fallacy.
EJ:
Thus, no matter what level of "truth" or "good" we reach, we can always do better. In fact, improvement of existence gives us meaning in life; without the prospect of learning new things and improving our situation, life would become meaningless: we might as well evolve into something inanimate, like a rock.
SR:
Again, you are confusing the issue of ontology—what is—with epistemology—what we know. To say there is a goal to one’s journey is not to say one has already reached it. Conversely, to say, as you do here, that there is no goal to one’s journey, does not make the journey more meaningful. Rather the reverse.
EJ:
Again, even if ther was such a thing as perfection, there is no proof it's a god. Again, Aquinas was assuming his anteceedent.
SR:
No, perfection is God by definition. You are merely saying you won’t use the word. Makes no difference.
EJ:
And now that I think about it, if imagining a perfect state is all it takes to proove God's existence,
SR:
You’re missing it, as always, Jeff. Imagining a perfect state has nothing to do with any of the proofs of God so far offered—although it is relevant to your “proof” of Batman. Imagining a perfect _being_ is relevant for Anselm’s ontological proof—but not here.
EJ:
I could imagine an entity more perfect than the notion of a god (ie an entity that is not jealous, wrathful, sadistic etc.).
SR:
You have just proved logically that your conception of God is wrong. I hope you can work out the implications of this.
EJ:
As for your notion of a quality independent of "length," that goes beyond the actual measurements, it's right in the dictonary.
SR:
Which would surely tend to prove Aquinas’s point.
EJ:
As for where ideas come from, they come from neurons.
SR:
They can’t come from “neurons” any more than they can come from stars or stones. A physical being cannot turn into a thought, and a thought cannot turn into a physical being. You haven’t grasped the “mind-body” problem. They (mind and matter) are parallel forms of existence.
There is no ultimate good. No matter how good you think you are, you can always do better. If this wasn't true we could reach a point of complacency whereby there's be no point to living.
By your definition then, God equals complacency.
I never said there was no goal. On the contray, I've been saying that, lucky for us, the goal of existence is never-ending, because there is no ultimate state of perfection. Perfection would be hell. Imagine playing golf and every shot went into the hole. Why bother playing?
Look up the word perfection in the dictionary: it does not say God.
I did not perceive God erroneously when I said He was not perfect. Read the bible. Right in the 10 commandments the fictional character of the Lord admits he is jealous. No perfect entity would be jealous, or murderous, or sadistic in wrath, etc. etc.
Stars or stones don't have billions of neurons working together to be more complex than the sum of their parts.
EJ:
There is no ultimate good. No matter how good you think you are, you can always do better. If this wasn't true we could reach a point of complacency whereby there's be no point to living.
SR:
You are confusing two very different propositions: “There is an ultimate good,” and “I am the ultimate good.”
This is the same as the difference between saying “God exists” and “I am God.”
EJ:
Look up the word perfection in the dictionary: it does not say God.
SR:
Look up the word God in the dictionary.
Merriam-Webster: “1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe”
EJ:
I did not perceive God erroneously when I said He was not perfect. Read the bible. Right in the 10 commandments the fictional character of the Lord admits he is jealous. No perfect entity would be jealous, or murderous, or sadistic in wrath, etc. etc.
SR:
You are assuming jealousy is never justified.
Merriam-Webster: “jealousy – 2. zealous vigilance.”
“Murderous” and “sadistic” are claims you have not substantiated.
EJ:
Now you're arguing in favor of jealousy? True, jealosy is a natural emotion. However, murdering people because of it is not justifiable homicide. I.e a husband is jealous of his wife (if he was perfect he would be beyond this emotion). This is normal. If he kills her because of it, he's going to jail for life!
Ideologically then, god deserves to go to jail for the life.
SR:
You are arguing that God has killed his wife out of jealousy? I’m afraid you’ve lost me here, Jeff.
EJ:
Your brainwashing has prevented you from seeing the obvious truth about your God. He has murdered millions, the entire population in one story (except for one family) with a flood. This is genicide to the extreme!
SR:
You’re missing it, Jeff. As I already pointed out, God kills everybody. How or when does not signify.
EJ:
God is a terrorist, plain and simple. Where do you think human terrorists get their ideas? Straight from the bible.
SR:
Odd you should think so. Up to about 1980, terrorists were overwhelmingly Marxists—atheists. Since then, we have seen the rise of Islamist terrorists. Despite this, according to the MIPT terrorism knowledge base, since 1968, leftist organizations are still responsible for far more terrorist incidents than Islamists: 4,182 to 2,641; with nationalist groups responsible for a further 4,867. In other words, pseudo-religious groups still account for only a small percentage of terrorism, and this is almost exclusively from one religious group. Neither atheists nor Islamists read the Bible.
On this evidence, it might be a far better world if they did.
Steve, have you ever heard of the word analogy? I used a jealous husband to distinguish how far the emotion goes to justify behavior. God murders people sadistically because of His jealosy. Thus, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe now that I've spelled it out for you, you can see the validity.
God does not kill everybody. I have already proved "He" is a myth. Plus, an autopsy shows what kills people with a great degree of accuracy. No god required, again you fail miserably in parsimony and empirical evidence.
Again, I've already conceded not all terrorists are religious. However, most are, by far, ie they are responsible for the current terror. Why do think they have such a facination for fire?
EJ:
Steve, have you ever heard of the word analogy? I used a jealous husband to distinguish how far the emotion goes to justify behavior. God murders people sadistically because of His jealosy. Thus, he is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe now that I've spelled it out for you, you can see the validity.
God does not kill everybody. I have already proved "He" is a myth.
SR:
But Jeff, you can’t have it both ways. If God is a myth, he doesn’t kill _anybody_, sadistically or otherwise.
Go argue it out and let us know what you decide.
Man Steve, you are thick here. Whenever I refer to a god, I'm referring to him in the mythical sense (it's like referring to Santa Clause or Batman or the Devil.)
Spelled out for you: the only way you know about God is through the Bible. The bible, a book loaded with myth, clearly depicts God as a sadistic murderer. Thus, all those weak arguments about him being perfect are obviouly false. That is, the very source of the myth depicts god as imperfect.
Post a Comment