Did Aquinas Prove That God Exists?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, as long as you don't believe physics is everything or believe everything else can be reduced down to being physics.

Image the following. You do it. You make a physical/scientific theory of everything and people keep on believing differently than you. Have you then made of a theory of everything? No, not really. That is the limit of science in practice.

The quality and usefullness of a theory, isn't valued based on how many people "believe it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because if it covers everything in a testable way, BUT if it can still be observed (a field test) that people can still disagree, THEN it doesn't cover everything in toto.

Again... the merrit and quality of a theory isn't determined by how many people believe it.

Your idea of a theory of everything rests on the hidden assumption everything subjective can be turn into an objective scientific test and turned into science

No, not "everything".

See, you gave the result of the test yourself. There is no scientific theory of ethics. Thus no theory of everything, because science can't reduce ethics down to physics. How is that? Because the one as a human behavior is subjective and the other objective.

We actually already pretty much know that ethics is the conceptual product of a physical brain.
The workings of that physical brain can be reduced to bio-chemistry, which is complex chemistry, which itself breaks down to physics.

Note also that ethics are just thoughts. They don't exist as self-sustaining entities independent of human minds. It's thus not the concept of ethics that requires an explanation - but rather the physical brain that produced it.

 

[ChristineM]

I am coming to this thread very late but maybe my two penneth is vald

Did Aquinas Prove That God Exists?

No.

If there were proof then there would be no questions, no atheist, there would probably be a science of god.

Aquinas's argument is based on assumption and faith, not evidence or fact.

 

[Polymath257]

No electrons are not Quantum particles, but they are Quantum objects more than Quantum particles.

What is the shape of an electron?

Rather, electrons are quantum objects. Along with all other quantum objects, an electron is partly a wave and partly a particle. To be more accurate, an electron is neither literally a traditional wave nor a traditional particle, but is instead a quantized fluctuating probability wavefunction.

I'm going to change the emphasis to be more correct.

"Rather, electrons are quantum objects. Along with all other quantum objects, an electron is partly a wave and partly a particle. To be more accurate, an electron is neither literally a traditional wave nor a traditional particle, but is instead a quantized fluctuating probability wavefunction."

And, that is *precisely* what it means to be a quantum particle: it acts partly like a traditional wave and partly like a traditional particle. This is what allows for interference, superposition, and entanglement.

One of my general suggestions for quantum mechanics is to be very careful in your sources and how you read them. The link you gave is pretty good overall, but easily misunderstood (as are most popular treatments of QM). The *only* way to really understand QM is to learn the math and actually work thorugh a textbook on the subject.

I would recommend the book by Eisberg&Resnick. If you want more details, PM me (this goes for anyone).

 

[Polymath257]

There was an intro undergrad MIT course on QM that was posted for free on YouTube a while back; I watched the first couple classes but didnt have the time and mental energy to finish. Now that this thread has re-sparked my interest in the topic, I may go back and try to find it again!

For an intro class you will need a basic differential equations class. It is probably a good thing to have a basic physics class also, just to get familiarity with concepts like momentum and energy.

If you have those, go for it!

 

[Left Coast]

It is good that one understands from the reasonable argument/s that "G-d should exist". And that is a step in right direction, but reason alone cannot lead to certainty, it has never done so.Right, please?

Regards

Reason alone can lead to certainty of particular things, sure. If the premises of an argument are sound and the structure is valid, the argument's conclusion necessarily follows.

A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[Left Coast]

For an intro class you will need a basic differential equations class. It is probably a good thing to have a basic physics class also, just to get familiarity with concepts like momentum and energy.

If you have those, go for it!

Ugh, you and math.

 

[Polymath257]

Ugh, you and math.

It seems to be the natural language of physics. At the very least, to understand our modern theories, it is required.

 

[Left Coast]

It seems to be the natural language of physics. At the very least, to understand our modern theories, it is required.

You're right of course. Math doesn't come as easily to me as other subjects, but I know I must eat my veggies.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm going to change the emphasis to be more correct.

"Rather, electrons are quantum objects. Along with all other quantum objects, an electron is partly a wave and partly a particle. To be more accurate, an electron is neither literally a traditional wave nor a traditional particle, but is instead a quantized fluctuating probability wavefunction."

And, that is *precisely* what it means to be a quantum particle: it acts partly like a traditional wave and partly like a traditional particle. This is what allows for interference, superposition, and entanglement.

One of my general suggestions for quantum mechanics is to be very careful in your sources and how you read them. The link you gave is pretty good overall, but easily misunderstood (as are most popular treatments of QM). The *only* way to really understand QM is to learn the math and actually work thorugh a textbook on the subject.

I would recommend the book by Eisberg&Resnick. If you want more details, PM me (this goes for anyone).

Electrons are NOT Quantum particles.
I believe I more correctly described the atomic particles as intermediates with properties of Quantum behavior and the macroworld behavior.

 

[paarsurrey]

Reason alone can lead to certainty of particular things, sure. If the premises of an argument are sound and the structure is valid, the argument's conclusion necessarily follows.

A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Reason always works and needs other sources of knowledge like History, Astronomy, Physics etc without such supportive data it won't work and get to any certainty. Please reflect again. Right, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Reason alone can lead to certainty of particular things, sure. If the premises of an argument are sound and the structure is valid, the argument's conclusion necessarily follows.

A Priori and A Posteriori | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The problem with reason is too many people come to diverse and conflicting conclusions based on religion alone.

 

[Left Coast]

Reason always works and needs other sources of knowledge like History, Astronomy, Physics etc without such supportive data it won't work and get to any certainty. Please reflect again. Right, please?

Regards

Again, it depends on the claim being made. If a claim or argument is self-contradictory, for example, I need zero knowledge of history or physics to conclude that the argument is wrong. I of course agree that we need to consult the world outside our heads to check that we are accurately understanding it.

 

[Left Coast]

The problem with reason is too many people come to diverse and conflicting conclusions based on religion alone.

That is a problem in general, certainly. It's not a problem *with reason*, I'd say. The issue is that even if you construct a valid argument, if your premises are unsound, you're back to square zero. And I agree that if someone's premise is "x is true" and their only basis for that is "my religion says so," that's a huge red flag in their reasoning.

 

[Polymath257]

That is a problem in general, certainly. It's not a problem *with reason*, I'd say. The issue is that even if you construct a valid argument, if your premises are unsound, you're back to square zero. And I agree that if someone's premise is "x is true" and their only basis for that is "my religion says so," that's a huge red flag in their reasoning.

And this is the problem I have found with most metaphysics. It likes to say how things 'must be' while giving arguments that are either full of holes (the conclusions don't follow from the premises) or where the premises may well be false.

Any definition that starts 'that which...' and assumes there *is* something 'that which' is begging a huge question.

 

[Left Coast]

And this is the problem I have found with most metaphysics. It likes to say how things 'must be' while giving arguments that are either full of holes (the conclusions don't follow from the premises) or where the premises may well be false.

Any definition that starts 'that which...' and assumes there *is* something 'that which' is begging a huge question.

Understandable, although in fairness I don't think materialist metaphysics (ie a metaphysics that says, "physics is my metaphysics") really avoids these issues.

 

[paarsurrey]

Again, it depends on the claim being made. If a claim or argument is self-contradictory, for example, I need zero knowledge of history or physics to conclude that the argument is wrong. I of course agree that we need to consult the world outside our heads to check that we are accurately understanding it.

Again the reason is useful if for a field of inquiry where it is to be used the proper and relative branch of knowledge is selected. In the physical domain knowledge of physics is necessary. In the spiritual domain knowledge of Word of G-d will be relative. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Left Coast]

Again the reason is useful if for a field of inquiry where it is to be used the proper and relative branch of knowledge is selected. In the physical domain knowledge of physics is necessary. In the spiritual domain knowledge of Word of G-d will be relative. Right, please?

Regards

I don't know what "Word of G-d" means to you. In the Scholastic worldview, no, knowledge of God's existence isn't "relative," it is deduced from our knowledge of other things. That's the whole point of the argument.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know what "Word of G-d" means to you. In the Scholastic worldview, no, knowledge of God's existence isn't "relative," it is deduced from our knowledge of other things. That's the whole point of the argument.

I do not believe that the 'scholastic world view' is the 'knowledge of God's existence isn't relative.' The dominant view is more based on the actual evidence and historical context of all religions.

It is true that for those that believe God's existence is not 'relative,' but absolute that God exists. The dominant meaning to those that believe in the literal 'Word of God' is direct Revelation through the author to the 'Word' as written. The problem is that there are many diverse and conflicting beliefs of scripture in religions as what is and how the written 'Word' is interpreted, which ranges from absolute literal 'Word of God' to broadly pragmatic interpretations to make things logically fit the knowledge of the contemporary world, and than there is the Jews that resort to heavily pragmatic 'Midrash' to interpret scripture.

To 'deduce from our knowledge of other things that God exists or that scripture is the Word of God' does not describe well rational of belief and the apologetic arguments for belief in God. Those that developed and believe in the apologetic arguments believe strongly first, and assume strongly before the develop or believe in the apologetic arguments making them so circular they bite you in the butt. Therefore they are only valid for those that already believe.

The strong tendency to 'make things' fit to what they believe is the main issue here.

"The more strongly you believe the more likely you are wrong."

 

[Left Coast]

I do not believe that the 'scholastic world view' is the 'knowledge of God's existence isn't relative.' The dominant view is more based on the actual evidence and historical context of all religions.

It is true that for those that believe God's existence is not 'relative,' but absolute that God exists. The dominant meaning to those that believe in the literal 'Word of God' is direct Revelation through the author to the 'Word' as written. The problem is that there are many diverse and conflicting beliefs of scripture in religions as what is and how the written 'Word' is interpreted, which ranges from absolute literal 'Word of God' to broadly pragmatic interpretations to make things logically fit the knowledge of the contemporary world, and than there is the Jews that resort to heavily pragmatic 'Midrash' to interpret scripture.

To 'deduce from our knowledge of other things that God exists or that scripture is the Word of God' does not describe well rational of belief and the apologetic arguments for belief in God. Those that developed and believe in the apologetic arguments believe strongly first, and assume strongly before the develop or believe in the apologetic arguments making them so circular they bite you in the butt. Therefore they are only valid for those that already believe.

The strong tendency to 'make things' fit to what they believe is the main issue here.

I think there is a misunderstanding here based on vocabulary. By "Scholastic" I do not mean "academic." Scholasticism was a medieval branch of philosophy/theology in the West (Aquinas was probably the most famous Scholastic, or perhaps William of Ockham). I don't mean to say that most modern academics agree with Scholastic ideas or arguments.

It's notable, also, that none of the arguments we've reviewed here are premised on what "the Word of God" says.