17 Nov 05
3 edits
[i/]Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i/]Was Acquinas a Deist?? No. Go to the Deist website and deal with the actual Deist beliefs, not the strawman you are trying to construct, Deist do not give God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscient certainly and while they rely on his goodness and justice, they make no claim for "moral perfection". Trying to argue what Deists believe by saying what Acquinas believed is like saying what Christianity believes by quoting Aristotle.no1: Actually they wouldn't since they rely on an omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect god, all of which are claimed attributes of your OT God but none of which are claimed attributes of the Deist God.
Not really - Aquinas argues for the omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence of God purely from philosophy in the [i/]Su ...[text shortened]... would apply to a Deist God as well as the OT God.
---
* http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm
17 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerOn re-reading your quote it says "I don't see why a Deist God couldn't be ......"
1. That his existence would be ascertained by reason etc. does not mean he cannot be irrational.
For instance, if the inmate of an asylum were to land at your doorstep, reason would be sufficient to ascertain his existence (and, perhaps, even his irrationality) - but the mere fact that you rationally ascertained his existence does not mean that [i ...[text shortened]... ies could be damned. So, based on your example, we don't know that the Deist God is not unjust.
Perhaps he could be, though there is nothing to indicate he would be. But we know by the evidence in your own Christian book that your OT God is irrational, jealous, murderous and unjust. You can only believe differently by arbitrarily constructing different meanings for those terms than are commonly used or by saying your God is above such definitions. As between a God who MIGHT be IJMU but there is no evidence that he is, and a God that certainly is IJMU which is more rational to believe in?
Have you ever read Paine's Age of Reason? It's on-line if you wish to, though he's not very complimentary about your OT monster God.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat does it matter whether Aquinas was a Christian, a Deist, a Buddhist or a Satanist? His arguments are based on reason and Nature alone (i.e. they are purely philosophical arguments) - which are exactly the same criteria Deists use. Don't commit the genetic fallacy - Aquinas's arguments for omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are not invalid simply because they came from a Catholic philosopher.
Was Acquinas a Deist?? No. Go to the Deist website and deal with the actual Deist beliefs, not the strawman you are trying to construct, Deist do not give God the attributes of omnipotence and omniscient certainly and while they rely on his goodness and justice, they make no claim for "moral perfection". Trying to argue what Deists believe by saying what Acquinas believed is like saying what Christianity believes by quoting Aristotle.
If Deists disagree with Aquinas's conclusions then, either:
(a) They have worked through his logic and identified some critical flaw in his reasoning; or
(b) They haven't examined his argument at all.
Which is it?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe Creator (if there was one) didn't in your book of horrors called the Old Testament. That's a collection of barbarous atrocities and an attempt to morally justify them by saying God was on our side (see Osama Bin Laden). Apparently your Creator also did a piss poor job revealing his plan, since wackos like BF101 and RBHILL come to radically different conclusions on what his plan is from your one, true church. Seems like the Holy Spirit needs some lessons in clear exposition of ideas.
But it wouldn't be "a presumption to make an article of faith as to what the Creator will do with us hereafter" if the Creator himself reveals part of that plan.
17 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy don't you read the Deist website rather than ASSUME what they believe?? They don't accept that a Creator is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. Period. I don't give two s***ts what some philosopher wrote 750 years ago mostly as a crutch to beat on "heretics" at the time and I'm not going to waste my time reading Acquinas. The concept of a Creator does not entail that the Creator has the attributes you give him. The Deists use the "Watchmaker" analogy; but just because the Watchmaker makes the watch doesn't imply that he knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen to the watch or that he has the power to do ANYTHING concerning the watch. Use some logic instead of being stuck in your RCC tunnel vision.
What does it matter whether Aquinas was a Christian, a Deist, a Buddhist or a Satanist? His arguments are based on reason and Nature alone (i.e. they are purely philosophical arguments) - which are exactly the same criteria Deists use. Don't commit the genetic fallacy - Aquinas's arguments for omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection are ...[text shortened]... tical flaw in his reasoning; or
(b) They haven't examined his argument at all.
Which is it?
EDIT: Does this sound like a Deist philosophy:
Reason is used in theology not to prove the truths of faith, which are accepted on the authority of God, but to defend, explain, and develop the doctrines revealed (Answer 8). - NewAdvent article on Thomas Acquinas
17 Nov 05
Here's some "pure reason" from Acquinas:
Question 8
First, as He is in all things giving them being, power and operation; so He is in every place as giving it existence and locative power. Again, things placed are in place, inasmuch as they fill place; and God fills every place; not, indeed, like a body, for a body is said to fill place inasmuch as it excludes the co-presence of another body; whereas by God being in a place, others are not thereby excluded from it; indeed, by the very fact that He gives being to the things that fill every place, He Himself fills every place.
This is called in modern terms, "begging the question" as well as being tedious to read.
17 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't you read the Deist website rather than ASSUME what they believe?? They don't accept that a Creator is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. Period. I don't give two s***ts what some philosopher wrote 1500 years ago and I'm not going to waste my time reading Acquinas. The concept of a Creator does not entail that the Creato ...[text shortened]... ANYTHING concerning the watch. Use some logic instead of being stuck in your RCC tunnel vision.
no1: Why don't you read the Deist website rather than ASSUME what they believe??
I'm assuming nothing about what they believe. According to the website, they base their beliefs on "nature and reason". Those are the same criteria Aquinas uses in his arguments.
no1: They don't accept that a Creator is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect. Period.
And why don't they? That is the question I'm asking. Either they've identified something wrong with Aquinas's arguments; or their non-belief in the OOMP God stems from their ignorance of those arguments. Which is it?
I don't give two s***ts what some philosopher wrote 1500 years ago and I'm not going to waste my time reading Acquinas.
Pythagoras' Theorem is not invalid now simply because it was formulated 2000 years ago (3000 if you ask Vedic mathematicians). Similarly, Aquinas's arguments (if rational) are as true now as they were then (and it's barely 800 years - not 1500).
Logic does not come with an expiry date.
I think that you are probably not a Deist and are probably not well-acquainted with their philosophical reasoning. If that is the case, then simply say so - no one's going to think I "won" the debate simply because you do not have a response for a position that is not really your own.
no1: The Deists use the "Watchmaker" analogy; but just because the Watchmaker makes the watch doesn't imply that he knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen to the watch or that he has the power to do do ANYTHING concerning the watch.
Since Time is essentially intrinsic to the Universe, it follows that the Creator exists outside Time. If that is the case, then the Universe is a static object to Him. In the Watchmaker Analogy, this means that the watchmaker made a watch that (to him) has no moving or changing parts at all. Since he created the watch, he knows exactly what each part is and is supposed to be. Since it is a static watch, he knows everything about the watch. In God's case, this translates to God knowing every event that has happened, is happening and will happen.
What's more, the watchmaker can always switch or remove parts that are not in accordance with his design. Similarly, a Creator of the Universe will always have enough power to (say) prevent an earthquake. Much more, in fact.
no1: Does this sound like a Deist philosophy
Does it matter?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's some "pure reason" from Acquinas:
Question 8
First, as He is in all things giving them being, power and operation; so He is in every place as giving it existence and locative power. Again, things placed are in place, inasmuch as they fill place; and God fills every place; not, indeed, like a body, for a body is said to fill ...[text shortened]... This is called in modern terms, "begging the question" as well as being tedious to read.
no1: This is called in modern terms, "begging the question" as well as being tedious to read.
Who said reading philosophy was supposed to be easy?
And read his argument carefully (refer the previous article on God existing in every thing) - he is not begging the question.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWho said reading philosophy was supposed to be easy?no1: This is called in modern terms, "begging the question" as well as being tedious to read.
Who said reading philosophy was supposed to be easy?
And read his argument carefully (refer the previous article on God existing in every thing) - he is not begging the question.
It's easier than some of the posts here, for sure....
And read his argument carefully (refer the previous article on God existing in every thing) - he is not begging the question.
oh, no?
1) God exists
2a) Everything else exists because God brought them into existence
2b) God exists in everything he created
3) Therefore, God exists
Did I miss something? Looks like circulus in probando to me. Not to mention ridiculously superfluous.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, LH, I'm not a Deist but I am familiar with the basic philosophy. If any of them ever bothered to refute Acquinas or Augustine's or any of the hundreds of other Christian philosophers, I don't know. Or care. Religious philosophy bores me to tears and as Acquinas' position is that reason is not used anyway but to confirm what is accepted a priori by the "authority of God", he is not making an argument that can ever be refuted anyway, at least in his and your minds. Acquinas did not base his arguments on "nature and reason" despite his claim to since he reached the conclusion first and then attempts to justify it. This is bad logic.no1: Why don't you read the Deist website rather than ASSUME what they believe??
I'm assuming nothing about what they believe. According to the website, they base their beliefs on "nature and reason". Those are the same criteria Aquinas uses in his arguments.
no1: They don't accept that a Creator is necessarily ...[text shortened]... more, in fact.
[quote]no1: Does this sound like a Deist philosophy
Does it matter?
Your rather laughable attempt to add a bunch of conditions to the Watchmaker analogy is pathetic. It does not follow that the Creator is "outside time" since we don't even know what that would mean - it's another platitude theists say without any idea of what such a concept is. Your leap that the watch is static to the Watchmaker is absurd; if he starts the watch and leaves it to work according to his design it changes, it is designed to change. Your conclusion is just that; YOUR conclusion - the concept of a Creator God says nothing about his characteristics other than he created this universe. Is this universe all there is? Who knows? You don't but you're afraid to say so; a Deist isn't afraid to say that he doesn't know all the answers about God.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI read his argument carefully; something is in all places, God created everything, therefore, since God created everything he's in all places, too. It's circular and idiotic.no1: This is called in modern terms, "begging the question" as well as being tedious to read.
Who said reading philosophy was supposed to be easy?
And read his argument carefully (refer the previous article on God existing in every thing) - he is not begging the question.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAccording to this Deist website, any interactions (if any) God makes with Nature or Man must conform to the laws of Nature God created in the first place. Thus, it would appear that Deists do not believe in an omnipotent or omniscient God that exists "outside time" (whatever that means).http://moderndeism.com/html/library7.htmlno1: Why don't you read the Deist website rather than ASSUME what they believe??
I'm assuming nothing about what they believe. According to the website, they base their beliefs on "nature and reason". Those are the same criteria Aquinas uses in his arguments.
no1: They don't accept that a Creator is necessarily ...[text shortened]... more, in fact.
[quote]no1: Does this sound like a Deist philosophy
Does it matter?
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by David C
[b]Who said reading philosophy was supposed to be easy?
It's easier than some of the posts here, for sure....
And read his argument carefully (refer the previous article on God existing in every thing) - he is not begging the question.
oh, no?
1) God exists
2a) Everything else exists because God brought them into existence
2b) God e ...[text shortened]... omething? Looks like circulus in probando to me. Not to mention ridiculously superfluous.[/b]
DC: Did I miss something?
In a manner of speaking. Aquinas isn't trying to prove the existence of God in Question 8 - that was shown in Question 2.
So, you didn't "miss" anything. You just tacked on your own proposition to Aquinas' argument and then claimed his argument was circular.
In other words, you just committed the strawman fallacy.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerMore snotnosery. If you want to expound to us idiots what the brilliant Acquinas' ideas are, why don't you start a thread on this clown? Please mention that he states that he accepts ALL the articles of the Christian faith a priori and uses (misuses) "reason" to confirm what the faith has already told him.DC: Did I miss something?
In a manner of speaking. Aquinas isn't trying to prove the existence of God in Question 8 - that was shown in Question 2.
So, you didn't "miss" anything. You just tacked on your own proposition to Aquinas' argument and then claimed his argument was circular.
In other words, you just committed the strawman fallacy.