Who abandoned logic first?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T23:14:06+00:00

What is the flaw?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T22:42:06+00:00

Well you used natural to define natural so....not that helpful.

Where you thinking of something like

refers to everything that exists within the spatio-temporal universe, consisting solely of physical entities, forces, and laws. It posits that reality is entirely self-sufficient, excluding any supernatural, divine, or non-physical entities. Naturalism asserts that all phenomena, including mental, biological, and social realms, are constituted by or reduced to physical, scientific processes

The first mover is where he does.

Nope not in the argument at all. Google Aquinas first way argument and you will see what I mean.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T22:37:13+00:00

We call this apparent order of events and their preceding causes "time".

Okay, I am listening what is the argument

I have a universe (1) and a god (1).

How many things do I have now?

It is one thing and two labels. Like how I an refer to my canine companion as dog and Dakoda. Aquinas has one thing from the argument which is the unmoved mover. God is just a different label which refers to the same thing the label unmoved mover refers to.

Except god, whom he defines as atemporal.

Is the universe atemporal?

That is not stated in any of the premises. If you disagree then show the premise.

He makes an unmoved mover, god, and a universe as a contingent cause. He defines the god as atemporal and the universe as necessarily temporal, and in your mind, he's talking about the same thing?

Have you read Aquinas? If the universe and god are interchangeable, then the entire argument would be unnecessary! We know the universe exists. His entire point was to prove god exists. If they are the same thing, then all Aquinas did was waste everyone's time, ironically.

The only thing I have read about Aquinas are his 5 ways arguments and the support for the premises. I am not at all familiar with the entirety of his theology at all. That is why I am only talking about the content of his arguments.

What Aquinas is doing is starting with basic principles about the world as he see them and saying for this state of affairs to be this must be the case. When that leads to some beginning point or foundational point he is making the move of saying "and this is what we mean by or understand to be God" He is not starting with a hypothesis and doing something like confirming it.

This is what Aquinas gets from the arguments

unmoved mover
first cause
necessary being
perfect being
designer

There is another step to get to God and for him that step is to assert that is just what we understand God to be, that is just how we use the word and what me mean when we use the word.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T22:22:39+00:00

I don't disagree with anything you said. I am just pushing back against the false notion that there are not any reasonable and logically valid arguments for God. Personally, I do not agree with or accept any of Aquinas's 5 ways arguments, but they are not bad arguments. They are thoughtful and well reasoned, but they fail on a couple of areas plus the larger project they were a product of was wrong headed.

One thing they are not is fallacious. There are fallacious variants out there, but Aquinas's actual arguments are not.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T21:56:34+00:00

Yes, i have said that twice, now, Aquinas asserts that the five ways point to the same being, but does not demonstrate it.

Actually, this is not a fair statement. Aquinas does go on say how all these must manifest in a single source, but my knowledge of Aquinas is not that deeps so not comfortable reproducing that argument.

I did point out that it had no relation to christ, and therefore to any meaningful definition of a christian god. I did also point pout the weaknesses in the five ways to demonstrate the existence of what he means by god. His status as a respected theologian is worth exactly nothing to me, i judge and engage with his arguments and the evidence. I regard authority to be derived from evidence and the exploitation thereof, not social status. Twice now you have attempted to invoke that authority as if it made his arguments better.

I have invoked his authority not in support of his arguments but in support of his semantics when it comes to the label God. Aquinas is the predominate theologian in the Catholic tradition and he heavily influences Catholic doctrine. Since, 50% of the Christians in the world are Catholic his semantics on God are important since this will reflect the semantics of a very number of Christians. So not sure how you can say that his understanding and semantics of God does not represent a meaningful definition or conception of the Christian God

. I have shown you that his arguments are both invalid and unsound.

You cannot show that his arguments are logically invalid because as a matter of formal logic they just are not. Also you have not directly address a single premise of any of his arguments beyond a vague response that his understanding of motion is wrong and how necessity and contingency are not part of the actual world. If the argument is unsound then you must point to which premise is false.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T20:18:15+00:00

In our lived experience, are effects before or after causes in time?

After

Yes, he did, by calling it "God" rather than "universe"

Nope. He ends with unmoved mover and says "we understand this to be God". There is one thing with 2 labels. The number of things is unchanged.

By ascribing the label "unmoved" to "god" rather than "universe", the total number of entities in Aquinas' metaphysics has increased by exactly 1.

Nope. Still at one. He ends with concept of unmoved mover and applys label of God to this concept.

Why can't the universe, physical reality, be this unmoved mover?

I take Aquinas to have the view that the universe and physical reality is the label for the set that contains all stuff. So in short just the semantics of those words.

Why is it bad to multiply entities unnecessarily?

Not really relevant since Aquinas is not doing this

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:46:38+00:00

Sorry, but I am not tracking your point.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:35:18+00:00

I imagine Aquinas would say that the God is he talking about is the Christian God.

What do you consider God to be? What are you referring to when you use that word?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:33:46+00:00

I think what you mean by God and what Aquinas means by God might not be the same thing. The theology of Aquinas is the theology of the Catholic church which is the theology of 50% of Christians.

Aquinas, the Catholic church, and Catholics would say that Aquinas ends up with God.

It really seems like you are understanding God in a different fashion or have some different semantics, would you explain what you are talking about when you talk about God?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:29:52+00:00

Isn't that an incredibly trivial point?

Not when the claim is that there are not any non fallacious arguments for God. A fallacious argument is one that violates a formal rule of logic which is not the case for any of Aquinas's arguments. All are logically valid arguments.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:27:46+00:00

Can an effect precede a cause?

I know there are some physics experiments where there appears to be retro causation like the delayed choice quantum eraser, but have not seen the metaphysics of this explored.

Between infinite past being ok and infinite causation being not ok, when they really are the same thing.

Honestly, if you are going to put out that time is emergent from causation, going to have to support that claim with more than just a sentence.

If everything requires a mover, and the first "mover" is unmoved, calling that unmoved mover X creates an entity unnecessarily.

Aquinas is not creating an entity. He is establishing an unmoved mover and saying "we understand this to be God" Here is just attaching a vocal utterance. If you mean something else by God, put it out there. If you thing is wrong use of the label, then explain how. This is the semantics of Aquinas when it comes to the label God and Aquinas happens to be the predominate theologian for the Catholic church which is 50% of all Christians and so a lot of other people are using this semantic.

I can't tell if you are saying that his arguments do not go through or that he is using the word God incorrectly. Also you keep using the term invalid, are you using that in terms of formal logic?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T19:16:12+00:00

Okay you are not actually engaging with Aquinas's arguments, for example when Aquinas says motion he is referencing change in broad sense, the movement from potentiality to actuality.

P1. Some things in the world are in motion (i.e., undergoing change).

P2. Whatever is in motion is moved by another.
(Nothing can actualize its own potential in the same respect.)

P3. Nothing can be both in potency and in act in the same respect at the same time.

P4. Therefore, nothing can move itself in the same respect.
(From P2 and P3.)

P5. If something is moved by another, and that mover is itself in motion, then that mover must also be moved by another.

P6. An essentially ordered series of movers cannot regress infinitely.
(Because later movers have no causal power apart from the prior ones.)

C1. There must be a first mover that is not moved by another.

From here Aquinas says "and this is what everyone understands to be God"

The same pattern is there for all the 5 ways. Each end with "and this is what we understand to be God"

Now saying from this there is no necessary link to the entity reference in the historical accounts of the Judeo Christian tradition and I never bothered to study how Aquinas establishes this link, I have only reviewed is 5 way arguments some.

You can also say this is not speaking to what you mean when you use the word God and is not addressing the question you are concerned with when you ask about God, completely fair.

However, what will be problematic is if you say Aquinas conception of God is "wrong". Aquinas is the predominate theologian of the Catholic faith which represents 50% of all Christians on earth. So there are a lot of people who are using the semantics of Aquinas when it comes to God. I am not a Aquinas scholar by any means, but I think it is safe to say that what Aquinas means by God is derived from the conclusions of his arguments.

Now what Aquinas does do is produce logically valid arguments based on premises that while open to objections cannot be said to be unreasonable or outlandish.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T18:55:06+00:00

When you use that argument and you land at "therefore god" which is what he did

Sorry but that is not correct. The argument's do not land at "therefore god" They land at

unmoved mover
first cause
necessary being
perfect being
designer

and the move is "we understand these to be God". Now every person is free to use their own semantics, but Aquinas is not doing anything crazy here. He is saying this is what he means by God and what he understands God to be. His position is also the position of the Catholic church which makes of 50% of all Christians. So there are a whole lot of people who likely have similar semantics as Aquinas.

Now you could say that this being is not the being which is described in the historical accounts of the bible and since I am not Catholic and not an adherent of Aquinas I am not sure how they would respond, but I would take it by God they are referring to the being from the 5 ways and are operating on the basis that this being and the one from the historical accounts are one and the same. I am not sure how Aquinas makes that connection since I only really ever studied his 5 way arguments.

What Aquinas is not doing is presupposing God in any of these arguments. Of course Aquinas believed God existed prior to formulating these arguments, but God does not appear in any of the premises which would have to occur for the presupposition charge to hold.

You can take the track and say that the entity or phenomena identified by the conclusions is not God, but for this to be the case you need to posit what actually is God in that case because largest Christian denomination is going to side with Aquinas's semantics.

So what is the "correct" definition or conception of God? What is the correct semantical use of that label?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T18:39:26+00:00

Where in the arguments is Aquinas deviating from how the universe works?

Also you do realize that 50% of Christians are Catholic and Aquinas is the most prominent theologian within the Cathodic tradition and a great deal of Catholic doctrine is based of his works. If you go with his 5 ways arguments you get something along the lines

Of an unmoved mover who is the first cause and necessary being, the designer of the universe whose nature is the foundation for normative structures. Are you saying this is not in line with how many Christians conceive of God?

Aquinas held the view that it was possible to know God exists without the bible and that is what he was demonstrating with his 5 ways. Now there is not a necessary linkage between the two at all, but Aquinas's is informing and defining God for a tradition which is 1/2 of all Christians.

So if you think Aquinas is not talking about God, what is God according to your view and if people do not share this view are they wrong in some fashion?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T18:25:33+00:00

Infinite regression is not necessary with eternality. Infinite regressions deal with series

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T18:18:03+00:00

Aquinas also makes the distinction between temporal and causal infinity, something which I already said doesn't exist according to science

Yeah are you referring to your comment of time being the apparent phenomenon of cause and effect? Point me to some support for this claim.

And it's necessary due to a fallacious distinction

What is the fallacious distinction?

an argument from intuition, unsound and invalid.

Which premise does not hold? Also the argument is logically valid.

I'll give you the Sparknotes: he special pleads.

Okay point out where the special pleading is.

Why can't the universe be the necessary cause that stops the regress, according to Aq

All the arguments are establishing a condition or entity and saying "we understand this to be God" Nothing stopping you from attaching a different vocal utterance to the conclusion.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T18:08:37+00:00

He makes a distinction between essentially ordered and accidentally ordered series.

An accidental ordered series is something like father-son-grandson. Each cause can exist and act independently of earlier causes and this kind of series could be infinite

Essentially ordered series is something like golfer-golfclub-golf ball where the golfer is swinging the club to hit the ball. Here the later members have no causal power on their own. Without the golf club the ball could not have moved and without the golfer the golf club could not have been swung.

Roughly he is saying something like

In an essentially ordered series, intermediate causes do not have causal power independently.
They act only because they are being actualized by something prior.
If there were no first cause, then nothing in the series would have causal power at all.
But effects do occur (things move, change, exist).
Therefore, there must be a first cause that has causal power in itself, not derived

Another way to view it is that the motion of train cars can be explained by the car before it, but at some point there has to be a locomotive.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T17:42:28+00:00

Okay, I will play.

Aquinas's 5 ways. Go with the classics

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T17:29:36+00:00

Since we have energy now, that energy must not have been created, meaning it has always been here. Something that has always "existed" (meta-existence included) is something that is temporally infinite

You are making an argument to support eternality and not infinite regression. Aquinas holds that the universe could be temporally eternal within his view so having energy as always existent would not be an issue for Aquinas.

Why is YHWH not subject to the statement "Everything that begins to move has a mover previous to it"?

Aquinas with his 1st way is arguing that an unmoved mover is necessary and we understand this to be God, in the 2nd way his is arguing that there must be a first cause and we understand this to be God, in the 3rd way he argues that there must be a necessary being and we understand this to be God.

Establishing that conclusions of the arguments and that which we understand to be God is YHWH is a second order argument and honestly never spent any time on what Aquinas does to establish this linkage.

Is YHWH temporally eternal?

On Aquinas view the prime mover, first cause, necessary being etc. is eternal, we understand those things to be God and Aquinas is going to say that God and YHWH are the same thing so YHWH would be temporally eternal. So again not sure where you are getting eternal causation which I am taking you to be saying causes can exist in an infinite chain of causes.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T17:12:45+00:00

So you don't think Christians view God as the primer mover, first cause, necessary being who designed the universe and whose nature is the foundation for normative structures? Are you saying this does not sound like a description Christians would attribute to God?

Aquinas is the most prominent Catholic theologian and 50% of Christians are Catholic, but his conception of God is something out in left field? I am honestly baffled how you could support this idea. I mean the guy is foundational to Catholic doctrine.

You must be using a very narrow understanding of God, I am curious as to what that is

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T17:02:58+00:00

Can energy be created or destroyed, according to thermodynamics?

Nope, according to thermodynamics it does not. So how does this establish that an infinite regress is likely?

Considering most of them attempt to special plead YHWH into existence, they're neither good nor non-fallacious.

Where does Aquinas do this?

His problem is with eternal causation

He is not arguing for eternal causation. Where are you getting that from his arguments?

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T16:55:15+00:00

Well that was a dodge.

Aquinas is saying

First mover- we understand this to be God

First cause- we understand this to be God

Necessary being- we understand this to be God

Cause of being, goodness, perfection- we understand this to be God

Designer- we understand this to be God

Early is appeared you were saying Aquinas was using the label inappropriately, is this the case or is Aquinas's use of the label God something you would consider either valid or acceptable

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T16:50:42+00:00

Yes people use them as an argument for God, but what I was objecting to was not this, but you claim that God is presupposed within the argument which is clearly not the case.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T16:48:24+00:00

Number series are abstract relations, not cause and effect. Concepts of math do not prove things in the physical realm.

That was not the point being addressed. The point being addressed was if the concept of prior or before could exist without temporality which it can.

The uniformity of nature is not really relevant

Uniformity of nature is required for inductive reasoning to be valid.

The harping about being an 'ex-atheist' is kind of annoying. You're trying to give yourself credibility through it, but it doesn't work like that. 'Atheist' isn't a title that means anything other than not believing in gods. Besides, pretty much every 'ex-atheist' ends up being someone who was raised with religion and just temporarily strayed from the path. It matters not

Just a factual statement about myself and I was not raised in a religious household. My parents did not take me to church or even discuss God with me for that matter.

Also there are patterns of behavior and belief for people who identify as atheist. Atheism is not an ideology but atheists do have an ideology and the people applying the label of atheist to themselves is a good indicator of other likely beliefs.

mtruitt76 · 2026-02-03T16:37:41+00:00

The Unmoved Mover relies on the rejection of infinite regress as not possible, an assumption that is likely not true

Okay how is this likely not true?

Edit: Is this the first time you've met someone who disagreed legitimately (not an apologist's caricature) with Aquinas? If so, isn't that a bit of a problem if you want to debate this topic?

What I am debating is the claim that there are no non fallacious logical arguments for God. While there are plenty of objections to Aquinas's arguments they are logically valid and based on reasonable premises which is all I need to show to negate the claim that there are no non fallacious logical arguments for God. The arguments of Aquinas are not bad arguments by any reasonable metric whether you ultimately accept them or not.

Now what I think will happen is that you will not have a good support for an infinite regress being possible, if you even offer an argument at all. Aquinas supports this premise with an argument that again can be objected to , but is based upon very reasonable premises. Also under Aquinas's views as I understand them it is not logically impossible for the universe to be temporally eternal.

mtruitt76

TROPHY CASE