St. Aquinas 3rd Way

Hello,

So, earlier this year we were discussing arguments for/against the existence of God.
One of the arguments for it was St. Aquinas 3rd way of existence.

"Thomas Aquinas, also Thomas of Aquin or Aquino, was an Italiam-Dominican friar and priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the "Doctor Angelicus" and "Doctor Communis". "Aquinas" is from the county of Aquino, an area in which his family held land until 1137. He was born in Roccasecca, Italy."

Here it is,

If someone does not know the term contingent,
1.subject to chance:

You can imagine the opposite of something contingent. Unlike necessary truths like math.

Some things are contingent.
2. Either everything is contingent or at least one thing is necessary.
3. If everything is contingent, then everything had a beginning in time.
4. But if everything had a beginning in time, then there would have been a time when nothing was.
5. And if there had been a time when nothing was, then nothing would ever have come into existence.
6. Yet, there is a universe.
7. So, it is false that there was a time when nothing was (from 5 and 6).
8. So, it is false that everything had a beginning in time (from 7 and 4).
9. So, it is false that everything is contingent (from 3 and 8).
10. So, at least one thing is necessary (from 2 and 9).


What do you all think of this, and how would an argument against this be given?

a reply to: MyEyesSeeTooClear

I would start with the viewpoint that something exists that is not of TIME. Something that cannot be seen yet it's influence is apparent all around us in everything we see, touch and feel. Akin to not being able to see the wind but it's influence is unmistakeable.

originally posted by: MyEyesSeeTooClear
Hello,

So, earlier this year we were discussing arguments for/against the existence of God.
One of the arguments for it was St. Aquinas 3rd way of existence.

"Thomas Aquinas, also Thomas of Aquin or Aquino, was an Italiam-Dominican friar and priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism, within which he is also known as the "Doctor Angelicus" and "Doctor Communis". "Aquinas" is from the county of Aquino, an area in which his family held land until 1137. He was born in Roccasecca, Italy."

Here it is,

If someone does not know the term contingent,
1.subject to chance:

You can imagine the opposite of something contingent. Unlike necessary truths like math.

Some things are contingent.
2. Either everything is contingent or at least one thing is necessary.
3. If everything is contingent, then everything had a beginning in time.
4. But if everything had a beginning in time, then there would have been a time when nothing was.
5. And if there had been a time when nothing was, then nothing would ever have come into existence.
6. Yet, there is a universe.
7. So, it is false that there was a time when nothing was (from 5 and 6).
8. So, it is false that everything had a beginning in time (from 7 and 4).
9. So, it is false that everything is contingent (from 3 and 8).
10. So, at least one thing is necessary (from 2 and 9).


What do you all think of this, and how would an argument against this be given?

Its basically like string theory saying the universe is imortal it has no begining or end.
Second the creator of the unvierse could be contigent possibly even not knowing it is or something is higher.
Its almost an argument with infinite regress.
If the universe is a means of its own and is immortal there is no need for god.

I happen to believe much like a diest based on reason. I find the teological argument more sound. Like the finely tuned universe.

The finely tuned universe gives athiest a serious problem and have had the privledge of watching some truly brilliant minds debate that topic.
One quick antidotal excerpt from that debate i found funny was the argument against the finely tuned universe is there could be more univereses. The scientists (both PhD's in advanced physics) were debating and the athiest showed a computer model of many universes using random particle alignmengz to create the structure we have in our universe. It took five univerese in his model to finally have physical laws to support life. He thought he was pretty smart. The scientist who believed in god simply replied "you programmed the model to do that though right"? It was a simple argument that momentarily stunned the athiest. They both laughed and continuednthe debate eventully admiting neither could prove their point but, emperically there is more mathmatical evidence their is something tuning in the conditions for life. The arguments against are nonemperical and completely theoretical like multiverse which for the first time in a while makes the athiest the one going on faith.

a reply to: MyEyesSeeTooClear
Nothing was and nothing said let there be light - then there was light (light is not a thing) - nothing saw the light was good.

There is never any thing - there is just light. Light is appearing as vision - can it be seen?
What is seeing?
What is there really?

a reply to: Itisnowagain no everything is not light everything is sound yes everything therefore "in the beginning there was the WORD and the WORD (SOUND) was god . well that's what the bible says no?

a reply to: coldlikecustard
Light and sound are made of the same stuff- waves.
What are the waves made of?

a reply to: Itisnowagain THE WAVES ARE MADE OF SOUND EVERYTHING IS SOUND light is made of soundwaves matter is made of soundwaves everything vibrates causing it to shape and form and this makes me as conflicted as anyone as I do not believe in the god of the bible yet at the same time the writer/writers knew that because in the beginning their was the word and the word was god

a reply to: coldlikecustard

What you are actually is beyond words, but it would be not untrue to say you are nothing whatsoever other than pure, infinite, disembodied consciousness/intelligence; a field of miraculous infinite light; God dreaming itself; an infinite point of pure potential; or the infinite implications of nothing whatsoever.

The immediate presentation of this unspeakable actuality is the field of your experience, which is an instantaineously appearing virtual field of Radiant Presence as apparent qualities. This is the actuality of which every/ and any/ thing that you think exists consists. This is inclusive and complete; nothing whatever other than this field exists. In short, the entirety of Reality is the "bubble" of YOUR experience, the field of Radiant Presence, which alone exists.

This is the totality of Reality. This is not theoretical, but is actually, immediately real; always the case right here right now.

theopendoorway.org...
Whether it is light or sound, it sure is amazing!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes and it only exists right now, in the present moment. Everything else is death. They say die to the past every moment because the only thing that exists is right now. The unfolding of every new moment fresh and alive in it's incredibly vibrant state. If you are not aware of this then you are still asleep so to speak, unconscious and dreaming. You have dreamed your life away and never truly lived.

Try this! Watch your TV and be aware of everything around you. Watch how many times you get sucked in to the images and lose awareness of your surrounding's. Most people will be surprised how often you do.

Sort if like this debate.....it detracts from your experience of the now.....

a reply to: MyEyesSeeTooClear

I believe the logic is true and accurate, and it is a philosophical tenet that I myself first and foremost believe in. But I do not think any logical follows that necessitates this line of thinking into any proof of God.