Synaesthesia

That's a very important point. Now I don't think that it's unfair to assume that causation breaks down (in an explanatory or descriptive sense) somewhere along the way. What is not fair, however, is to assume that only an intelligent agency can be involved in this breakdown. This is, indeed, a very dubious assumption given causality's role in intelligence as we know it.

St. Robert

Aquinas is saying that the first mover's movement originates from the first mover. The first mover is moved by no other. This notion, of course, is foreign to us because we are not the first mover. It's like asking who created God? The answer is God. This typically makes no sense to the carnal mind because we are the creature, not the Creator.

Although Aquinas was a Christian, his commentary does not exalt the Trinity as God. He understood that it's hard enough to convince people that God exists, let alone that Jesus Christ is God.

Synaesthesia

Sir Robert,
I think you’ve missed the point. I really don’t think that it is nonsensical for causation to break down, although no one has justified the contention it has to break down.

It is, however, illogical to assume that causation necessarily breaks down at an intelligent agency. The first cause argument assumes that a God would have to be at the beginning. As such, unless you start with the conclusion that God created the universe, the first cause argument cannot end up with that conclusion.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

St. Robert

Synaesthesia,

Aquinas doesn't make the claim that the first mover must be intelligent. He only claims that the first mover is moved by no preceding other.

Would it be illogical for me to assume that your causation is from an intelligent agency?

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Jobar

St. Robert, in fact every single thing we observe, in the entire universe, is in motion. One of the really unique things we humans have accomplished is to reduce motion to near-stillness- we can chill matter to a tiny fraction of a degree above absolute zero, far colder than intergalactic space. And even then, the atoms we try to freeze are still moving- just very, very slowly. Motion appears to be an intrinsic property of existence, and needs no first mover.

Automaton

St Robert, who moves an alpha particle when it moves from an atomic nucleus? God?

Devilnaut

A logical argument within the atheistic framework - what constitutes something "within the atheistic framework"? Does it mean, something other than an appeal to the supernatural? And by logical, I assume you mean soundly logical? As in, you believe that this argument conclusively proves the existence of God?

....this argument would fail?

Heh.. well they certainly don't glean this "understanding" from the contents of this particular argument...

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

St. Robert

This entire website is devoted to defending the view that the natural world is all there is, a closed system sufficient unto itself. (Paraphased from the homepage) This, I guessed, was the atheistic framework. That nothing exists outside the natural world.

Question: How is a person able to maintain an open mind in a closed system?

Devilnaut

The same way you claim to maintain an open mind in your "closed system" of only the natural and the supernatural, while rejecting the dimensions of the Ultranatural, the Sort-of-natural and the Crazynatural.


I think it's sort of funny that you think that if someone does not believe in something, they automatically have a closed mind towards it. You must believe in a lot of silly things if you consider yourself open minded in this way.

Edit to add, by the way:

(posted by me)
You could've simply said "yes".

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Synaesthesia

St. Robert,
This is an unwarranted assumption due to the fact that there are other ways in which causation can break down.

Well I wouldn’t say “illogical” so much as unjustified and very probably not true.

As many people have pointed out, this website’s statement is a highly misleading characterization of most forms of naturalism. My position is that my ontology can only be developed by a system of epistemology. As such, what I determine exists follows from my theoretical system, I don’t follow purely from assumptions about what exists to my system of knowledge as the site’s statement seems to imply.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>