The AI has learned Thomas Aquinas. Ask it some questions

[zippy2006]

Speak for yourself.

No, my statement is a claim about the way that phrase gets used. Argue against it if you like.

If God exists, then something exists. If God exists necessarily, then something exists necessarily.

Does Aquinas see God as an existing something?

 

[zippy2006]

Interesting. I'm thinking you could use "randomly" as opposed to "freely", to explain.

"God created randomly," instead of, "God created freely"? No, I don't think so.

But, anyway, I don't see how you (or Aquinas) get the fact of existence [of all else besides God himself] not showing God is "necessary".

Your contention could be read in two ways: "God is necessary for creation," or, "Creation attests to God's necessity." Granting either one would not give us an answer to the question of why creation exists, so these are separate questions. Similarly, saying that my parents were necessary for my existence does not explain why they conceived me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"God created randomly," instead of, "God created freely"? No, I don't think so.

I didn't say he did create randomly. I was saying that the word would fit better into your statement, if you mean "freely" does not imply "necessarily" God.

Mark Quayle said:
But, anyway, I don't see how you (or Aquinas) get the fact of existence [of all else besides God himself] not showing God is "necessary".

Your contention could be read in two ways: "God is necessary for creation," or, "Creation attests to God's necessity." Granting either one would not give us an answer to the question of why creation exists, so these are separate questions. Similarly, saying that my parents were necessary for my existence does not explain why they conceived me.

Both of the two ways are true. And they do give an answer to the question of why creation exists —it exists because God created it.

Now you are moving the goalposts to compare your conception to this. That you don't know why your parents conceived you, is similar to saying that you don't know why God created. But you didn't ask why God created, but only why creation exists. —not the same thing.

 

[zippy2006]

I didn't say he did create randomly. I was saying that the word would fit better into your statement, if you mean "freely" does not imply "necessarily" God.

What I have already said continues to hold here, for my statement was, "For Aquinas there is something because God freely chose to create, not because God is necessary." You would substitute 'randomly' for 'freely', hence: "For Aquinas there is something because God randomly chose to create, not because God is necessary."

Again, this is not in accord with Aquinas or Christianity, but it doesn't exactly surprise me that a Calvinist would think in terms of the mechanistic random/determined dichotomy.

That you don't know why your parents conceived you, is similar to saying that you don't know why God created. But you didn't ask why God created, but only why creation exists. —not the same thing.

If we don't know why God created then how would we know why God's creation exists? The difficulty here is that, "Why is there something rather than nothing," is a metaphysical question and not a physical question. The more proximate problem is that when you say that God is necessary for creation you have provided a condition rather than an account. When the cause transcends the effect, reasoning from effect to cause can shed only a very limited light on the cause--much less than what the question desires.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What I have already said continues to hold here, for my statement was, "For Aquinas there is something because God freely chose to create, not because God is necessary." You would substitute 'randomly' for 'freely', hence: "For Aquinas there is something because God randomly chose to create, not because God is necessary."

Again, this is not in accord with Aquinas or Christianity, but it doesn't exactly surprise me that a Calvinist would think in terms of the mechanistic random/determined dichotomy.


If we don't know why God created then how would we know why God's creation exists? The difficulty here is that, "Why is there something rather than nothing," is a metaphysical question and not a physical question. The more proximate problem is that when you say that God is necessary for creation you have provided a condition rather than an account. When the cause transcends the effect, reasoning from effect to cause can shed only a very limited light on the cause--much less than what the question desires.

we are talking past each other

 

[AlexB23]

Guys, do you have any other questions about Thomas Aquinas?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Guys, do you have any other questions about Thomas Aquinas?

Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):

Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency​

Summary​

In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.​

To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see, which is always limited if not distorted. What the argument shows is: Since WE see things that are possible to be and possible not to be, etc, WE should believe that there must be....a necessary being.

—What WE see does not prove what is fact.

Ask AI if that assessment makes sense.

 

[AlexB23]

Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):

Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency​

Summary​

In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.​

To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see, which is always limited if not distorted. What the argument shows is: Since WE see things that are possible to be and possible not to be, etc, WE should believe that there must be....a necessary being.

—What WE see does not prove what is fact.

Ask AI if that assessment makes sense.

So, how do you want me to prompt it?

Does the following assessment summarized from Aquinas' Third Way make sense and hold water? Does what we see prove what is fact, or not? Here is the summary: "In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God."

 

[public hermit]

Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):

Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency​

Summary​

In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.​

To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see, which is always limited if not distorted. What the argument shows is: Since WE see things that are possible to be and possible not to be, etc, WE should believe that there must be....a necessary being.

—What WE see does not prove what is fact.

Ask AI if that assessment makes sense.

While you wait on the machine...

What the argument assumes is that mere possibility cannot be self-generating. It also assumes that since everything we experience is only possible, we can, by way of induction, take all of created reality as being only possible.

And if that is the case, then something not-possible, i.e., necessary, must exist in order for the various possibles to exist. It starts by what we observe in the physical world, but you are right, it's a metaphysical argument.

One could say the series of possibles is infinite, and Aquinas had no defeater for an infinite regress.

I wonder if the inductive move, from what we experience to what is always the case, is what you find unacceptable.

 

[AlexB23]

While you wait on the machine...

What the argument assumes is that mere possibility cannot be self-generating. It also assumes that since everything we experience is only possible, we can, by way of induction, take all of created reality as being only possible.

And if that is the case, then something not-possible, i.e., necessary, must exist in order for the various possibles to exist. It starts by what we observe in the physical world, but you are right, it's a metaphysical argument.

One could say the series of possibles is infinite, and Aquinas had no defeater for an infinite regress.

I wonder if the inductive move, from what we experience to what is always the case, is what you find unacceptable?

Awesome. I will get to this one tomorrow morning. I can ask this as a follow-up question.

 

[public hermit]

Awesome. I will get to this one tomorrow morning. I can ask this as a follow-up question.

Ask Aquinas: Is an infinite regress possible?

 

[AlexB23]

Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):

Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency​

Summary​

In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.​

To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see, which is always limited if not distorted. What the argument shows is: Since WE see things that are possible to be and possible not to be, etc, WE should believe that there must be....a necessary being.

—What WE see does not prove what is fact.

Ask AI if that assessment makes sense.

Here is what the machine said.

Prompt:
Does the following assessment summarized from Aquinas' Third Way make sense and hold water? Does what we see prove what is fact, or not? Here is the summary: "In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God."

Response:

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see

Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?

 

[AlexB23]

Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?

Can you word this into a prompt that is detailed enough that I can ask the artificial intelligence?

 

[Mark Quayle]

While you wait on the machine...

What the argument assumes is that mere possibility cannot be self-generating. It also assumes that since everything we experience is only possible, we can, by way of induction, take all of created reality as being only possible.

And if that is the case, then something not-possible, i.e., necessary, must exist in order for the various possibles to exist. It starts by what we observe in the physical world, but you are right, it's a metaphysical argument.

One could say the series of possibles is infinite, and Aquinas had no defeater for an infinite regress.

I wonder if the inductive move, from what we experience to what is always the case, is what you find unacceptable.

First, that assumes that all of created reality behaves as the part of it that we experience. I could use that reasoning to claim that since nothing has ever happened that did not happen, then what we assume could have happened, but did not, could NOT have happened. Empirically, we have no reason to say that it could have happened.

I agree that mere possibility can not be self-generating, but if everything we experience is only possible, or in the lingo of some, "potential", then can we experience God —or only evidences of God? But I agree too, that a necessary must exist in order for the contingent to come to exist.

The problem I have is not that the series of possibles is infinite —that is, to me, the notion of infinite regress is "logically repugnant" and not worth my time; it is unsatisfactory. The problem I have is that the proof Aquinas finds worthy is based on WE SEE. I agree with what he says we see, but not that it is sufficient upon which to base fact, but only belief. We can't only not show that it isn't always the case —we can't even show if it is ever the case, from that evidence. The only way that evidence can be taken to prove it, is if it is ASSUMED to be universal. And I don't see how we can do that. It is more than an inductive move, I guess is what I'm saying. It is a logical skip. But yes, you are right. I guess it is that move in logic from empirical evidence to universal assumption.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?

In other words, that Aquinas was being imprecise in his argument? Why would he mention, "we see"?

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, how do you want me to prompt it?

Does the following assessment summarized from Aquinas' Third Way make sense and hold water? Does what we see prove what is fact, or not? Here is the summary: "In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God."

That should work, though I would begin with the summary, then follow with the question concerning the summary.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now.

Another question for AI: Does the above statement from Aquinas' 5 ways mean that all contingencies would have gone out of existence, or does it mean that no contingencies would ever have come to exist?

 

[AlexB23]

Ask Aquinas: Is an infinite regress possible?

Here is the answer from the AI:

 

[zippy2006]

"Give ten reasons why Islam is false."

I wonder what saint Thomas Aquinas would say about the Protestant revolt and all the associated doctrines that went with it?