Edit: This is an argument from St. Thomas Aquinas. I thought that was quite clear since I gave the name of the argument. I have several of Aquinas' five ways posted here. This is not plagiarism. You can clearly see me acknowledging Aquinas' ownership of these arguments in at least two of the comment threads. I'd also like to inform anyone who wishes to continue these discussions, that I'm shifting this to Skype. Text discussions are tedious and don't allow for the same level of understanding as an actual auditory conversation.
1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
If you would like to discuss this with Christians, you're welcome to join our Skype group: https://join.skype.com/qiOeHUnpsm1A
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Philosophy has never been an effective method for gaining knowledge about reality. Since the 17th cenrury science has left all of philosophy sucking its dust. For instance , philosophers for centuries asked "What is mind?". Not once did a philosopher discover a synapse or the role of the prefrontal lobe. Aristotle thought the brain was a radiator to cool the blood. Descartes thought the mind entered the body through the pineal gland. Philosophers have been just as successful with physics and cosmology.
"Philosophy has never been an effective method for gaining knowledge about reality. Since the 17th cenrury science has left all of philosophy sucking its dust."
This statement is so obviously wrong. Science is not opposed to philosophy. Science is grounded in philosophy. You cannot believe in the scientific method or even the concept of truth without first establishing your own epistemology and metaphysics. Metaphysics takes precedent over physics because it grounds it.
Bull. Scientists no longer deal in philosophy. The methodology of science is independent of philosophy.
I'm sorry but that is just pure nonsense. The methodology of science was developed by philosophy. It gets its justification from philosophy. You think Bacon just randomly proposed it out of nowhere. And the fact that many scientists don't deal in philosophy is irrelevant. Philosophy is the ground for the scientific method.
Science now operates inependently of philosophy and has far surpassed philosophy as a means to explain reality. To ponder cosmology with philosophy is archaic and futile
Excuse me but no one is pondering cosmology with philosophy. You simply don't understand what philosophy is meant for. I'm inviting all of the atheists here to the Skype group I'm in with several Christians. I posted the link in the original topic post if you want to join and discuss this at some point.
I am old and old school. Writing is my forte. I have never skyped. I only sent my first text message 5 years ago. Besides , internet forums allow our conversations to last and we can pick up where we left off. Trying to make a point in a crowded noisy room is something I no longer have the patience for. That being said, I am enjoying our argument here. Even though it is the same old bullshit that William Lane Craigs begs to be acknowledged.
We don't do loud noisy rooms. Interruptions aren't allowed. But if you can't get Skype, then I don't know how to help. Craig has some very good ideas and many people misunderstand him. There is a point to be made a priori about the nature of reality. What I can do is ask some simple questions. I'll start with this: how do you know anything?
I was not as!ing for advice about skype. Just making a statement about an old fart set in his ways. Politely te!ling you I have no intention on skyping with you or any of your christian associates. Invite your skype friends here.
How do I know? I read books by scientists. No explanation of reality by theists or philosophers has ever amazed me like Darwin, Dawkins, Susskind, Sagan, or Bertrand Russell have. I am a simp!e man. Not a scientist or philosopher. If you think you can leave me awestruck you are welcome to try. So far , eh!
So science is the only method by which to know things? Or is it just things that amaze you that are true? What I'm getting at is how you know anything. For example, how do you know that you exist. It's a very simple starting point for any epistemology. This is what philosophy is about. But so many people just jump into science and act like they've got a working epistemology that can support science. I could ask an even more basic question: what is knowledge?
Philosophy makes simple things so comp!icated. Why even ask such questions? How do I know I exist? Who would ask such a question if the seeker were not sure of an "I" to base the question on .Such questions are a luxury afforded to the affluent. I am happy for those that have time to ask "Do I exist?". That is a priveledged and rare perspective. Most are worried about where their very real and necessary next meal comes from.
You could argue that science makes simple things complicated too. I don't think this is a good argument for dismissing philosophy. Perhaps the truth derives from this complexity philosophy seemingly creates. Don't get me wrong, science is an extremely useful tool. And if you're going for a pragmatic approach to your life, I can understand not concerning yourself with philosophy at all times. At least not in a major capacity. But the scientific method definitely is inspired by philosophy itself. It's even structured in a similar manner as arguments from it are formulated.
Ok but what is knowledge?
RadicalWhiggery:
I have my sensory perceptions. All else is interpretation. Other than the rules of reasoning (deduced from experience) we make one other assumption, namely that our collective senses correspond to a reality which we then interpret by the scientific method. After that we assign levels of credibility to our interpretations of physical data. God seems to be an unneeded layer of intellectual fat that is best removed with Occam' Razor. (I have more to say about science in another post on this thread.)
RadicalWhiggery:
Science is an inductive method and has no ultimate grounding other than the rules for good reasoning (epistemology) and the assumption that our collective senses do report reliable data which then must be interpreted. Without that basic assumption we would have nothing left to talk about, so we lose nothing in making it.
The first real scientists introduced the novel idea of actually looking at the data as the starting point of any investigation. Before science, philosophy was limited to armchair speculation and its deduced consequences. That's why it never got us to the moon. That's why it has nothing to say about new discoveries about the nature of our world. Good philosophy can sharpen our thinking, but all too often it is used to build sand castles in the sky.
Of course, we probably shouldn't fault the ancient Greeks for being armchair thinkers. Back then there wasn't much in the way of data, and there was also this false notion that reality could be penetrated by pure thought. Real science could only arise when that view was overthrown.
It is an inductive method, but how could it possibly not have grounding? You said yourself that it's grounded in epistemology. Inductive reasoning is what has be grounded for science to work. The question is, how do you solve the problem of induction? Philosophy was never supposed to get us to the moon. It's not about testing physical reality. It's about deducing things about natural and supernatural ontology so that we know why nature operates a certain way. Reality can be partially understood by pure a priori. In fact, you must start from a priori to even conclude that a posteriori is valid.
RadicalWhiggery:
Inductive reasoning is not grounded in such a way as to allow certain conclusions. It deals with probabilities or confidence levels. If you wish we could call inductive and deductive reasoning, and mathematical considerations for maximizing one's chances of being right, as the foundation for science. But it does not confer certainty.
You can't get to the real world by purely deductive reasoning which, after all, only proves what it assumes in its premises. No atheist has to accept any given premises for a purely deductive argument since such premises/postulates/axioms are ultimately arbitrary! If one chooses premises to reflect reality, there is the problem of confirming the correlation, which throws us back into inductive reasoning. Ultimately you must base conclusions about physical reality (and that includes anything that can affect physical reality) on evidence.
Is there a non-physical reality? Our senses are the basis for all we know about reality, necessarily a physical reality (and that includes anything that can influence physical reality). To go beyond that is to deal with purely deductive logic, which cannot go beyond its assumed axioms. Therefore, I reject the "supernatural realm" unless extraordinary evidence is at hand (in which case it would become an unexplained part of nature). You are not going to get there by these antiquated philosophical, deductive arguments.
Well I don't know exactly how you would get evidence of the supernatural. But axioms can be viewed as self-evident truths. I'd have to know more about your epistemology, but it seems as though you're somewhat of a pragmatist. Do you have Skype? Because you'd be a great addition to our group.
RadicalWhiggery:
I thing what chimp3 is saying is that until science arose philosophy was stagnant in terms of describing our reality. Therefore, he viewed philosophy outside of science as being ineffectual in that sense. It's general methods of trying to deduce everything from the armchair (from pure reason as the Greeks might have put it) is a failed method. Reality has to be investigated, and that was the big idea of that part of philosophy that evolved into scientific methodology.
I agree that reality has to be investigated. But I have a justification for the inductive method in my epistemology and metaphysics. I don't think many atheists on here share that with me. Many of them are willing to just assume science works and move forward. My point is that, without a working epistemology, the scientific method is meaningless.
Radical : "My point is that, without a working epistemology, the scientific method is meaningless."
This similar to the theists argument that atheists have no objective basis for morality. Meanwhile science validates itself with it's own methodology.
Atheists can have a basis for objective morality. I don't think many atheists do though. Science doesn't validate itself though. It can't validate itself. It doesn't have the capactity to validate anything without an epistemological justification. This is why no one has been able to answer my question about the problem of induction.
@ RadicalWiggery
You're just using sematics and philosophy to water down anything anyone says.
How can you be sure you're actually you? That your are reading this on an actual forum, connected to an actual Internet? Perpahs you are a brain in a vat, interpreting stimulus? Perhaps you are just a small part of a dream in an unimaginably vast mind?
Science works, because it's tested and peer reviewed. And then new discoveries are made on top of previous discoveries. If the bottom layer was wrong, the next layer wouldn't work. Your able to use computers because they're buildt on layer after layer of science. If the bottom layer didn't work, none of the others would either.
If I may ask, what epistemology do you adhere to, if science isn't valid?
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
Stopped there as this seems false.
That's not an argument.
If the first thing in a series doesn't exist, then the series never began. So it can't exist.
consider the graph of the function sqrt(x)/x. The graph exists, but yet it has no points no starting point.
RadicalWhiggery:
Another way of looking at it is to arrange the integers in the following order: ...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 (stopping at 3 which would represent the present year) so that each one is followed by another that is one higher. There is no first integer, since we have an "infinite past," but the series still exists.
It's an actual infinity and, therefore, can't exist.
So take the arc sqrt(x)/x up to x = 1. Sequence of points with no starting point, with a finite length.
Pages