Proving God with Rigour-Aquinas' 3rd way

bambaluci

the old problem of proving God!

have been reading the Great Rationalist Spinoza, famous for his stark "ultimately all is one" pantheistic conception of the universe and his faith in reason. to that end i have taken up his geometrical method [ala Euclid] and reworked the ususally baffling 3rd way of proving God by St Thomas Aquinas that came up in a recent lecture.

its all based on the two axioms which seem reasonable, firstly that from nothing comes nothing[ you dont just get thing appearing out of nowhere] and secondly there cannot be infinite causal regress [ things have to start somewhere, be it big bang or whatever]

now if we accept these then because of my [ or rather Spinoza's ] rigorous and somewhat dry approach the conclusion must follow [or should it ?????]

here goes...


Reworking of St Thomas Aquinas 3rd Way of proving Gods Existence according to Geometrical Method.

Definition 1 ; by Necessary I mean things that may not not-be, or the impossibly inexistent [the eternal, it can never not exist]
Def 2 ; by Unnecessary I mean things that may not be, or the possibly inexistent [the transient, it may not have existed and may cease to exist]
Def 3 ; by God I mean that which is Necessary in virtue of itself

Axiom 1 ; there cannot be Infinite regress of causal relations in the universe
A 2 ; from Nothing comes Nothing [nihilo ex nihilo]

Proposition 1 ; since there are unnecessary things there must be necessary things

Proof ; if all things are Unnecessary or possibly inexistent then it is possible that Nothing existed at one point. But by A 2 if Nothing existed then there would be nothing now which is contradicted by experience.

Therefore ; there must always exist Something Necessarily, that is eternally.

Lemma 1 ; By P 1 there must always exist Something Necessarily ,this something we know as God.

Proof ; this Something may be necessary in virtue of itself or in virtue of another if it is necessary in virtue of another then this other may be necessary in virtue of itself or in virtue of another. But by A 1 there must Something that is necessary in virtue of itself.

Therefore ; God exists, that which is in virtue of itself.

Q.E.D


there we go!

P.S. this also raises some questions about necessity, which could be interesting to discuss..

ratminer

Like most\all purported proofs of the existence of god, this is bogus and ultimately obfuscating. The statement of Axioms is essentially as statement of gods existence and would be regarded as such by all objective listeners, therefore the 'proof' elements are redundant and pointless.

It would be more intellectually honest to just state:

God exists as an axiom, therefore god exists.

The bit where you define that which has always existed as "God" is the dodgy bit, after you have stated that something cannot come from nothing.

If you want to take this another way - declare "that which has always existed" as X and see how far that gets you. The problem is that you move to X==God, and God has previously been 'defined' as "old guy with white beard' who does stuff to\for us, wrote the bible\koran\torah and spanks us when we're bold yadda, yadda, yadda. So try to move from X to all the other stuff in a rational way?

To quote the noted, modernist philosopher G. Michael ... "you gotta have faith".

I propose that the existence or non-existance of gods is unproveable.

If you want to test this, then try to prove that the number of Gods is a prime number less than 31 (and piss off the Hindus) !

DadaKopf

Like Descartes, the pure logic of these propositions and the whole argument are hard to deny, however, both arguments fall flat when you begin to examine the assumptions (or predicates?) of each argument, they implode. I.e. when you relate the X's and Y's to real-world references.

bambaluci

just to clear up some things....
personally i do not believe in a christian God and have no wish to prove him, in not out to convert anyone, what i was hoping to do was to highlight some aspects of Logic and use and limits of reason especially in the context of Spinoza's and Aquinas' thought and the debate about reasons applicability to the Divine.

and the fact that it may be to some people "bogus and ultimately obfuscating" etc
makes no difference, the logical and philosophical content is of interest.

The bit where you define that which has always existed as "God" is the dodgy bit, after you have stated that something cannot come from nothing

.

God is defined in definition 3, basically the self caused cause. this is a valid and indeed much popular definition of God especially amoungst philosphers and theologians such as Aquinas and it is still offical church doctrine.

the pure logic of these propositions and the whole argument are hard to deny

this is what is interesting, based on accepted axioms can we use logic to rationally prove the God of the philosophers? Ratminer disagrees but im not so sure, the Medievals and the Rationalists such as Leibniz and Spinoza believed you could. today it is concensus that we cannot, why is that when the arguement is the same?

because of the rigourous logic of the argument the only way you can disagree with the conclusion [without throwing logic out the window] is to challenge the explicit assumptions [definitions and axioms], the definitions are standard enough and the axioms are not that wild, they make sense.
Dadakopf, im wondering in what sense the axioms or definitions fail in your eyes?

Ps a point on the validity of argument- a logical argument cannot fall down, only its conclusions, if it is based on false premises.

ratminer

I think my assertion that it is essentially obfuscation is valid. I am not impressed or swayed by the reputations of those making these claims.

For example ... look at Lemma 1:

Lemma 1 ; By P 1 there must always exist Something Necessarily ,this something we know as God

That 2something we know as God" ... this makes all the rest supposed logic pointless. To phrase the argument in simpler terms -

Nothing can never come from nothing, therefore something must have existed to begin ... this we know as God.

However we could state this as:
Something must always have existed, let us refer to this as 'little green men' or 'santa clause' or the 'goddess' or whatever you're having yourself.

This couldn't by any objective criteria be considered a 'proof' in any scientific view. For example, I challenge you to disprove that there are 17 gods, each of different colour and each with one leg more than the previous one.

The proof you state can be used to prove 'anything' always existed which reveals that it proves nothing.

The central problem is that 'God' is an overloaded term, so you use it as a logical artifact whereas it is a slight of hand to illogically jump the 'proof' to the god invented by zoroaster\moses\christ\mohammed etc.

Daavid

But if you read the first post referring specifically to the definitions it reads:

Lemma 1 ; since there are unnecessary things there must be necessary things, there must always exist Something Necessarily ,this something we know is Necessary in virtue of itself.

Not agreeing or disagreeing here, I'm still going over the whole thnig. But just opinting out that the definitions are there and when read like this it removes the clouded idea of GOD and all that the word GOD brings on board.

ratminer

If 'GOD' is being defined as opposed to being proved then it can only be viewed as misleading to use such an overloaded name as GOD for the entity whose existence is being proved.

I propose therefore, to avoid confusion, that we replace the token GOD with SATAN in the foregoing proof. Does it fall down in any way ? (I think not).

So, now that we have proved the existence of SATAN, there does not seem a necessity for GOD ?

Peanut

Ratminer's point is valid - there's no logical reason to jump from "Something that is necessary in virtue of itself" to "God", at least in the common sense of the word "God", although I guess it depends on your definition.

I would just like to point out some more issues:

"There cannot be Infinite regress of causal relations in the universe"
- ...is an implied understanding of a linear interpretation of time in the universe. There's no good reason to think that our experience of causality is anything more than a rough version of what may actually happen in reality, if indeed this is proveable at all. I think it's highly likely that determinations of causality, and implicity, space & time, are far more complex than we give credit to. This is also relevant to proposition 1 - " if Nothing existed then there would be nothing now".

I agree that the determination of existence of a "God" or gods is unproveable. I also propose that the popular notion of "God" is meaningless, but serves as a symbolic tool for people to attempt to understand certain metaphysical structures.

I really think though that it's to society's detriment that people use the term as a throwaway - it's a lazy way to avoid actually thinking about you say...
Using a term like "the Godhead" is a bit of an improvement as it at least tries to indicate a more rational way of thinking, IMHO, and is less anthropomorphised (hmm had to check dictionary.com for that one!).

bambaluci

Ratminer, you are missing the point.

read the argument and the definitions.

your sole point is that you do not agree with the definition of God given.

but as i said above this is a valid and popular definition of God and the definition is all we are concerned with for the purposes of the argument.

you are right in that you could call it X or Satan, but then X or Satan would have to be described by the definition and thus fulfill Aquinas' definition of God. so that equates to a meaningless renaming.

you are also right that this proof in no way proves a personal deity, an anthropomorphic God, or a divine moral order. what are percieved as the main tenets of Christian religion.

God is defined strictly in this situation. this definition leaves a conception of God as the divine source and transendent principle of all existence, to this extent i think it may have some relation to the God that people worship.

Peanut..

there's no logical reason to jump from "Something that is necessary in virtue of itself" to "God",

there is when thats the definiition of God

in responce to your challenge to the axioms, by questioning temporality and Causality...

There cannot be Infinite regress of causal relations in the universe"
- ...is an implied understanding of a linear interpretation of time in the universe.

we always experience time as linear and irreversible sequence of causally changing phenomona.

There's no good reason to think that our experience of causality is anything more than a rough version

i think by talking about an alternative causality you are alluding to metaphysical realm of more sophisticated causal chains or no causal relation what so ever that we may hypothetically be unaware of. are you?
there is absolutely no evidence for this, we know with certainy that certain thing are followed by other things is a causal fashion.

i think the way to defeat the proof is not to challenge time or causality but to simply deny that we can use Axiom 1 as a basis for knowledge, if the world was eternal then that would defeat A1 thus making the conclusion false. but in reply to that i think that most evidence and our intuition supports the thesis that the universe has to start somewhere.

muesli_offire

Just started the Ethics today, so I thought I'd add my two cents on Spinoza so far.

we always experience time as linear and irreversible sequence of causally changing phenomona.

I always thought Spinoza (especially the Spinoza of the Ethics) had a non-linear notion of time.

Also of course to have Spinoza channelling Aquinas (or is it vice versa) is a bit confusing, and is apt to tempt one towards a labelling of Spinoza and his method as being a bit logically formalistic. However this notion has been challenged greatly in the latter half of the twentieth century by thinkers who recognized the radicalness of his thought, and his treatment of singularity and multiplicity (God?). So Spinoza's appeal from a (Late?)Marxist perspective is the (alleged) ability of his thought to go beyond a dialectical world-view without taking its eye off the infinite.
Hence, In 'The Savage Anomoly', Antonio Negri argues that Spinoza's account of being in the Ethics is developed in phenomenological rather than formalistic terms.

ratminer

"you are right in that you could call it X or Satan, but then X or Satan would have to be described by the definition and th"us fulfill Aquinas' definition of God. so that equates to a meaningless renaming."

It is disingenuous of you to casually agree with me on this because it is central. Do you think that people's perception of this thread would be the same if it were titled ... proving the existence of Satan.. ?

No - because we already, and unavoidably, bring preconceptions of 'God' as more than a token in a logical progression. If the debate were ... prove the existence of X from the assumption that nothing comes from nothing, it wouldn't evoke much interest. So ... you are trying to prove the existence of the guy with the long white beard who does magic tricks, and it is, as I say, disingenuous to deny it.

Furthermore, and at the risk of offending people, there is a danger of being overimpressed with jargon in this to the detriment of clear and logical thought. The arguments are simpler than presented and ultimately the complications introduced meerly serve to cloth the threadbare argument.

In essence your Axiom is your Definition is your Proof.

Peanut

bambaluci wrote:

Peanut..
there is when thats the definiition of God

lol.. well that's your definition!
And it's no good just saying that it's your point of view, if you are trying to prove something axiomatically then you really need to be more precise about this. In other words, why do you think "Something that is necessary in virtue of itself" is synonymous with what's called "God"? You could easily substitute "The Cosmos".

bambaluci wrote:

in responce to your challenge to the axioms, by questioning temporality and Causality...

we always experience time as linear and irreversible sequence of causally changing phenomona.

We generally experience it that way. I don't think you can say that we always do, and even if we did, it wouldn't mean that that's how it works.

bambaluci wrote:

i think by talking about an alternative causality you are alluding to metaphysical realm of more sophisticated causal chains or no causal relation what so ever that we may hypothetically be unaware of. are you?
there is absolutely no evidence for this, we know with certainy that certain thing are followed by other things is a causal fashion.

Again, I don't think we can say this either. We know generally speaking that laws tend to apply from our observation of the physical world, but that's not to say that we can know for certain that everything has a (linear) cause. We can't know that, for certain.

You're right though, I'm alluding to different interpretations of causation, not necessarily alternative ones, but more complex ones. I know that every quack uses the following as an excuse, but as far as I am aware there is still no satisfactory understanding of the nature of collapse of the pilot wave function in quantum physics, and the boundaries between quantum states and "decided(?)" states in physical systems are not clear.

bambaluci wrote:

...i think that most evidence and our intuition supports the thesis that the universe has to start somewhere.

Another un-knowable unfortunately!!!
We can trace background microwave radiation etc. to a specific time 13 billion years ago or whatever, but we're still stuck as to whether what we're looking at is the entirety of the cosmos, or just our given 'local' universe.

It's pretty much completely unknowable for sure, and that's where these arguments fall down because the best we can do is just say "Yeah this is probably the way things happened, at least as far as we can tell".

Nice thread btw

bambaluci

And it's no good just saying that it's your point of view, if you are trying to prove something axiomatically then you really need to be more precise about this. In other words, why do you think "Something that is necessary in virtue of itself" is synonymous with what's called "God"?

in defence of the definition, i restate, this is the churchs official doctrine and thomas Aquinas' definition of God, In no way is it my opinion. the arguement and the definitions are pretty much as precise as you can get.

It's pretty much completely unknowable for sure, and that's where these arguments fall down because the best we can do is just say "Yeah this is probably the way things happened, at least as far as we can tell".

i think it comes down to acceptance of the axioms, which are not certainties, they are pretty close but to being sure in our everyday experience but ultimately we cannot be sure.

I always thought Spinoza (especially the Spinoza of the Ethics) had a non-linear notion of time.

i think so , but the proof is not using Spinozas concepts and ideas only his method.

However this notion has been challenged greatly in the latter half of the twentieth century by thinkers who recognized the radicalness of his thought, and his treatment of singularity and multiplicity (God?). So Spinoza's appeal from a (Late?)Marxist perspective is the (alleged) ability of his thought to go beyond a dialectical world-view without taking its eye off the infinite

.

he is a fascinating individual and his philosopphical system has extraordinary dept and range, I dont know much of the modern interpretation of him but i'd be interested to Find out!

ratminer

Oh well, that explains it all .... it is the (sic) "church's official doctrine." The obviously would have come to the question of the existence of god with an open mind.

This purported proof is very unconvincing.

bambaluci

"church's official doctrine."

as i staed adove i was merely pointing out that the definition is not my opinion

This purported proof is very unconvincing

as i have stated before, we are not trying to establish definitively that God exist but have a discussion of the philosophical contents and implications of said proof.

we've heard your point a few times, if you have anything else to contribute please do.

Gurgle

bambaluci wrote:

from nothing comes nothing
there cannot be infinite causal regress

OK, this disproves the 'first there was nothing, which exploded' primary school concept called 'the big bang'.

Newsflash: This was never a serious scientific theory!

The big bang is a part of the infinite cycle of the expansion and collapse of the universe.
It happens every few trillion years, it doesn't attempt to explain where everything came from in the first place.

So the entire arguement boils down to: we don't know where the stuff in the universe came from, so God must have done it

Which isn't even an arguement, its millenia old dogma.

(Besides, the same logic proves that God couldn't have just sprung into existence from nothing)

gaf1983

What do ye make of this:

Some people believe that God exists while other people believe that God doesn't exist while other people still aren't quite sure.

Now take the premiss that if God does exist he is omnipotent. He can do everything, absolutely anything he wants. So surely if he was omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to convince all the atheists out there that he doesn't exist, yeah? (Because he can do anything and everything - and one of the things that just so happens to come under the bracket of "anything and everything" is convincing masses of people that he doesn't exist.)

There you have it. This idea is completely cogged out of Bernard Werber's WLe Livre secret des fourmis."

Gurgle

gaf1983 wrote:

...if God does exist he is omnipotent. He can do everything, absolutely anything he wants. So surely if he was omnipotent, he would be powerful enough to convince all the atheists out there that he doesn't exist, yeah? (Because he can do anything and everything - and one of the things that just so happens to come under the bracket of "anything and everything" is convincing masses of people that he doesn't exist.)

There you have it. This idea is completely cogged out of Bernard Werber's WLe Livre secret des fourmis."

Wow, I must go out immedietly and not buy that book!

Crucifix

Gurgle wrote:

The big bang is a part of the infinite cycle of the expansion and collapse of the universe.
It happens every few trillion years, it doesn't attempt to explain where everything came from in the first place.

I think this ties in nicely with the fact that the proof really only proves that there must have been something existing forever; and that something could of course be the universe itself. The universe being in this cycle since minus infinity is just as feasible as God having existed since minus infinity.

Gurgle

Crucifix wrote:

The universe being in this cycle since minus infinity is just as feasible as God having existed since minus infinity.

Well yes-ish....

This type of maths usually leads denialists to the conclusion that there is no universe except as a figment of its own imagination.