Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, my statement is a claim about the way that phrase gets used. Argue against it if you like.Speak for yourself.
Does Aquinas see God as an existing something?If God exists, then something exists. If God exists necessarily, then something exists necessarily.
"God created randomly," instead of, "God created freely"? No, I don't think so.Interesting. I'm thinking you could use "randomly" as opposed to "freely", to explain.
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.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".
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."God created randomly," instead of, "God created freely"? No, I don't think so.
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.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.
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."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.
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.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.
we are talking past each otherWhat 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.
Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):Guys, do you have any other questions about Thomas Aquinas?
So, how do you want me to prompt it?Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):
Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency
SummaryIn 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.
Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):
Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency
SummaryIn 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.
Awesome. I will get to this one tomorrow morning. I can ask this as a follow-up question.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.
Here is what the machine said.Wikipedia says, (I'm keeping it short):
Third way: The Argument from Time and Contingency
SummaryIn 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.
Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?To me this argument does not hold water, because it depends on what WE see
Can you word this into a prompt that is detailed enough that I can ask the artificial intelligence?Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?
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.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.
In other words, that Aquinas was being imprecise in his argument? Why would he mention, "we see"?Isn't the point that WE are contingent beings?
That should work, though I would begin with the summary, then follow with the question concerning the summary.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."
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?But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now.
Here is the answer from the AI:Ask Aquinas: Is an infinite regress possible?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?