[QUOTE=ITR champion]
This happens quite a lot in these threads, that someone asserts that certain proofs of God’s existence have been proven logically false but fails to tell me where I can find these debunking of proofs of God. I’ve given a location for the proof of God in the works of St. Thomas; they’re available at your local library and probably online somewhere. Now many atheists have told me that St. Thomas’ arguments have been shown to be logically false, but no atheist has yet shown me that St. Thomas’ arguments are logically false. Do you see the difference. Now it seems to be the atheists who firmly believe in something whose existence can’t be shown in the physical world.
[/QUOTE]
Ahem. Here we go (the proofs are from the Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 2 , Article 3) :
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas #1]
It must be said that God’s existence can be proved in five ways. The first and most obvious way is based on the existence of motion. It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it. A thing moves something else insofar as it actually exists, for to move something is simply to actualize what is potentially within that thing. Something can be led thus from potentiality to actuality only by something else which is already actualized. For example, a fire, which is actually hot, causes the change or motion whereby wood, which is potentially hot, becomes actually hot. Now it is impossible that something should be potentially and actually the same thing at the same time, although it could be potentially and actually different things. For example, what is actually hot cannot at the same moment be actually cold, although it can be actually hot and potentially cold. Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover. For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by “God.”
[/QUOTE]
He jumps from “first mover” to “God”. Isn’t that a little hasty? Maybe I think that the first mover was the universe itself. St. Thomas does not address any other candidates for what this first mover must be. That to me is not philosophically sound. In other words, that there is a first mover may be philosophically demonstrated here, but that is a far cry from God himself.
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas #2]
The second way is based on the existence of efficient causality. We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause. If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Nevertheless, the order of efficient causes cannot proceed to infinity, for in any such order the first is cause of the middle (whether one or many) and the middle of the last. Without the cause, the effect does not follow. Thus, if the first cause did not exist, neither would the middle and last causes in the sequence. If, however, there were an infinite regression of efficient causes, there would be no first efficient cause and therefore no middle causes or final effects, which is obviously not the case. Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls “God.”
[/QUOTE]
Same as above. He demonstrates the necessity of a first cause, but leaves out all the steps between that and God. The universe itself may have been the first cause.
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas #3]
The third way is based on possibility and necessity. We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time. If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed. If this were true, however, then nothing would exist now, for something that does not exist can begin to do so only through something that already exists. If, therefore, there had been a time when nothing existed, then nothing could ever have begun to exist, and thus there would be nothing now, which is clearly false. Therefore all beings cannot be merely possible. There must be one being which is necessary. Any necessary being, however, either has or does not have something else as the cause of its necessity. If the former, then there cannot be an infinite series of such causes, any more than there can be an infinite series of efficient causes, as we have seen. Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls “God.”
[/QUOTE]
Again, something may have been necessary, but St. Thomas just assumes that it is God. Maybe, perhaps, it is the universe itself?
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas #4]
The fourth way is based on the gradations found in things. We find that things are more or less good, true, noble, etc.; yet when we apply terms like “more” and “less” to things we imply that they are closer to or farther from some maximum. For example, a thing is said to be hotter than something else because it comes closer to that which is hottest. Therefore something exists which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being; for, as Aristotle says, the truest things are most fully in being. That which is considered greatest in any genus is the cause of everything is that genus, just as fire, the hottest thing, is the cause of all hot things, as Aristotle says. Thus there is something which is the cause of being, goodness, and every other perfection in all things, and we call that something “God.”
[/QUOTE]
This is just not true. There is, for example, a “coldest temperature” i.e., absolute zero, but there is no hottest temperature. It is not the case that fire is the cause of everything that is hot (nor, indeed, that it is “the hottest thing”). St. Thomas also assumes here that there is an independent, objective definition for “good”, of which God is the ultimate “goodness”. I would say “good” differs from person to person, and therefore it is not possible to have an “ultimate good” that anybody could agree on.
[QUOTE=St. Thomas Aquinas #5]
The fifth way is based on the governance of things. We see that some things lacking cognition, such as natural bodies, work toward an end, as is seen from the fact hat they always (or at least usually) act the same way and not accidentally, but by design. Things without knowledge tend toward a goal, however, only if they are guided in that direction by some knowing, understanding being, as is the case with an arrow and archer. Therefore, there is some intelligent being by whom all natural things are ordered to their end, and we call this being “God.”
[/QUOTE]
There is no goal. St. Thomas posits that “natural bodies work toward an end”, but does not show that this is the case. I feel most people would disagree with that assumption these days. Just because things behave the same way consistently is not evidence for a God. There are rules that the objects in our universe obey. It’s called physics.
You’ll also note that most of these “proofs” rely on our own ignorance of infinity or our ignorance in some other way (for example the nature of “good”). I don’t necessarily think it is impossible that there was an infinite regress of causes or movement, etc., but even if you accept that for the moment, these proofs do not convincingly prove anything to anyone who hasn’t already accepted their conclusions.
