• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Tomas Aquinas The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio a

RAMOSS

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,963
Reaction score
27,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thomas Aquinas's The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) is as follows

Thomas Aquinas said:
The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
Click to expand...
Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
 
Possibility and Necessity to me means, a probability or stochastic effect, vs a deterministic effect. Contingent beings means, beings which exist temporarily, randomly, by stochastic probability.

Point 5 states there "could" have been a time when no things existed. "Could" implies probability, not necessity. However, once in a condition where no things exist, it's hard to conceive how anything could come into existence. So there couldn't have been a condition in which no things existed, unless something existed that was not a result of causality. "This all men speak of as God." This is essentially the same argument as the one about motion, where motion was concerned about causality in the exchange of energy, here it is about material. I think it's the same argument about cause and effect, using a different example.
 
RAMOSS said:
Thomas Aquinas's The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) is as follows


Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting this Ramoss.

Acquinas' 3rd proof of God is simply the 2nd proof all over again but restated as an indirect proof in the indirect proof format.

I like it, but that's only because I also like the 2nd proof.

The 3rd proof is very analytical however and very few people will understand it because it deals in indirect proofs, and the mathematical laws of indirect proofs.

Boiled down to it essence, the 3rd proof of God is simply saying "something had to create us."
 
Manny said:
Possibility and Necessity to me means, a probability or stochastic effect, vs a deterministic effect. Contingent beings means, beings which exist temporarily, randomly, by stochastic probability.

Point 5 states there "could" have been a time when no things existed. "Could" implies probability, not necessity. However, once in a condition where no things exist, it's hard to conceive how anything could come into existence. So there couldn't have been a condition in which no things existed, unless something existed that was not a result of causality. "This all men speak of as God." This is essentially the same argument as the one about motion, where motion was concerned about causality in the exchange of energy, here it is about material. I think it's the same argument about cause and effect, using a different example.
Click to expand...

Yah but you're nit picking the words.

It is more significant to focus on his initial assumption which he is trying to prove, which when it leads to a contradiction of something that we know, must therefore be held to be untrue, as in any indirect proof format.
 
Riveroaks said:
Thank you for posting this Ramoss.

Acquinas' 3rd proof of God is simply the 2nd proof all over again but restated as an indirect proof in the indirect proof format.

I like it, but that's only because I also like the 2nd proof.

The 3rd proof is very analytical however and very few people will understand it because it deals in indirect proofs, and the mathematical laws of indirect proofs.

Boiled down to it essence, the 3rd proof of God is simply saying "something had to create us."
Click to expand...


Yet, it doesn't say "WHY" that has to be the case. It seems to start with that assumption, and then work backwards.
 
RAMOSS said:
Yet, it doesn't say "WHY" that has to be the case. It seems to start with that assumption, and then work backwards.
Click to expand...

That's precisely how an indirect proof works. You start from an assumption, and you work your way backwards.
 
Riveroaks said:
That's precisely how an indirect proof works. You start from an assumption, and you work your way backwards.
Click to expand...

That works fine in mathematics, but not philosophy. There is a difference you know.
 
RAMOSS said:
That works fine in mathematics, but not philosophy. There is a difference you know.
Click to expand...

Philosophers still use deductions, inductions, and indirect proofs.

And you should try to lose your self aggrandizement it really detracts from your syllogisms.
 
Riveroaks said:
Philosophers still use deductions, inductions, and indirect proofs.

And you should try to lose your self aggrandizement it really detracts from your syllogisms.
Click to expand...

Well, can you show that this argument is any better than an argument that assumes the exact opposite?? No, you can't. That makes the entire indirect proof of philosophy totally and utterly useless.
 
RAMOSS said:
Well, can you show that this argument is any better than an argument that assumes the exact opposite?? No, you can't. That makes the entire indirect proof of philosophy totally and utterly useless.
Click to expand...

I already stipulated that there is no difference between Aquinas' #2 and #3. They are simply saying the same thing only one is a direct inference while the other is an indirect proof.

Do you always answer your own questions prematurely and thus create weak syllogisms ??

That sounds like something your mother taught you to do when she was trying to get you to clean up your room.

But your mother was no trained philosopher so I would not keep imitating her if I were you. At least not on philosophy forums.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
I already stipulated that there is no difference between Aquinas' #2 and #3. They are simply saying the same thing only one is a direct inference while the other is an indirect proof.

Do you always answer your own questions prematurely and thus create weak syllogisms ??
Click to expand...


I am saying that the ontological arguments are worthless, and the 'start at the conclusion and work backwards' shows that they are.
 
Which is another counter argument to the existence of god, because god is eternal and exists outside of time, or so the claims go.
 
Ancient Herald said:
Which is another counter argument to the existence of god, because god is eternal and exists outside of time, or so the claims go.
Click to expand...

There are no valid counter arguments to the existence of God, whether the philosopher god or the religious God(s).

Simply because it is impossible to prove a negative.

You would need to search every square inch of the Universe and that cannot be done with our present technology.

You can assert that God is busy and/or away at the time.

You can assert that God is forgetful and has forgotten about you.

You can even assert that your people have fallen from God's grace and He has abandoned them.

But you cannot say or prove "there is no God."

I am total with Frank Apisa on this.
 
Riveroaks said:
There are no valid counter arguments to the existence of God, whether the philosopher god or the religious God(s).

Simply because it is impossible to prove a negative.

You would need to search every square inch of the Universe and that cannot be done with our present technology.

You can assert that God is busy and/or away at the time.

You can assert that God is forgetful and has forgotten about you.

You can even assert that your people have fallen from God's grace and He has abandoned them.

But you cannot say or prove "there is no God."

I am total with Frank Apisa on this.
Click to expand...

Except for one thing.

Two negatives equal a positive.

And two lefts make a right.

:D
 
Riveroaks said:
Yah but you're nit picking the words.

It is more significant to focus on his initial assumption which he is trying to prove, which when it leads to a contradiction of something that we know, must therefore be held to be untrue, as in any indirect proof format.
Click to expand...
What else can you do but try to analyze words? It's not even written in our language, let alone time, cultural cross references.
Just my thoughts... I could be way off of course!

Yes, it is indirect and that is where the real question lies.
 
Manny said:
What else can you do but try to analyze words? It's not even written in our language, let alone time, cultural cross references.
Just my thoughts... I could be way off of course!

Yes, it is indirect and that is where the real question lies.
Click to expand...

Aquinas' proofs make perfect sense to me.

Descartes' two proofs are the ones I have trouble accepting.
 
Riveroaks said:
There are no valid counter arguments to the existence of God, whether the philosopher god or the religious God(s).

Simply because it is impossible to prove a negative.

You would need to search every square inch of the Universe and that cannot be done with our present technology.

You can assert that God is busy and/or away at the time.

You can assert that God is forgetful and has forgotten about you.

You can even assert that your people have fallen from God's grace and He has abandoned them.

But you cannot say or prove "there is no God."

I am total with Frank Apisa on this.
Click to expand...

You have morphed into Frank Apisa; Tell me it isn't true!

If what you say is true then, I ask again, what use is Philosophy? If you can't ground Philosophy in the existence that it claims to explore then what use is it?
 
Riveroaks said:
There are no valid counter arguments to the existence of God, whether the philosopher god or the religious God(s).

Simply because it is impossible to prove a negative.

You would need to search every square inch of the Universe and that cannot be done with our present technology.

You can assert that God is busy and/or away at the time.

You can assert that God is forgetful and has forgotten about you.

You can even assert that your people have fallen from God's grace and He has abandoned them.

But you cannot say or prove "there is no God."

I am total with Frank Apisa on this.
Click to expand...

You have morphed into Frank Apisa; Tell me it isn't true!

If what you say is true then, I ask again, what use is Philosophy? If you can't ground Philosophy in the existence that it claims to explore then what use is it?
 
RAMOSS said:
Thomas Aquinas's The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) is as follows

Originally Posted by Thomas Aquinas

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
Click to expand...

Is this argument reasonable and rational? What are the weaknesses of this argument? What are it's strengths? Do you find this argument convincing, if so, why? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

The usual wordy drivel.

It has no value because it is not informed by the real world.

Here is a video of how carbon can create life all by it's self. It's a very good professional presentation.

https://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_life_and_not_life?language=en
 
William Rea said:
You have morphed into Frank Apisa; Tell me it isn't true!

If what you say is true then, I ask again, what use is Philosophy? If you can't ground Philosophy in the existence that it claims to explore then what use is it?
Click to expand...

If you told Frank this he would puke.

He and I heatedly disagree.

I believe in the 5 proofs of God by Aquinas and he morphs science/Empiricism into philosophy and by saying we have not yet found God's house and seen him walking in his back yard with our telescopes therefore we CANNOT know of God's existence.

So there is a big difference between Frank and myself.

The purpose of philosophy is (1) to think clearly, (2) examine science with it, (3) examine religion with it, and (4) determine what our own ethics should be.

If you follow Zarathustra/Zoroaster, you then regulate your thoughts, words, and actions with it too.
 
Riveroaks said:
If you told Frank this he would puke.

He and I heatedly disagree.

I believe in the 5 proofs of God by Aquinas and he morphs science/Empiricism into philosophy and by saying we have not yet found God's house and seen him walking in his back yard with our telescopes therefore we CANNOT know of God's existence.

So there is a big difference between Frank and myself.

The purpose of philosophy is (1) to think clearly, (2) examine science with it, (3) examine religion with it, and (4) determine what our own ethics should be.

If you follow Zarathustra/Zoroaster, you then regulate your thoughts, words, and actions with it too.
Click to expand...

Yet, none of the 'five ways' of Aquinas actually does any of that. The only one of that that comes close is 3, but it fails under any kind of scrutiny to actually examine religion. It makes claims about God as a generic, but there it does not present axioms that can be shown to be valid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom