Did this nerd get anything right? >muh intelligent design

Nope.

>>8609328
No. He didn't.

his Qinquiae Viae are among the profoundest and elegant arguments made in the history of philosophy

this is in no way immediately apparent without further study (as is true for many significant philosophers)

3/10 for making me reply

when you write that much you're bound to get something right

>>8609328

He got literally everything right.

>>8609566
They're loaded and bullshit. For example the first mover argument doesn't stop with god, the argument supposes that God also must have a mover since nothing moves without being put in motion. And if god is the first mover, what moved the first mover to start moving?

>>8610388
Did you miss the part where God is the unmoved mover? In other words, God is not in motion, but he causes other things to be in motion. How can this be? Because God has no potentialities, he is pure act. Since motion means some kind of change in properties, quantity, quality etc. and God undergoes none.

>>8610397
>God undergoes no change
accept his fragile mental state.
God is the most triggered person in literary history

>>8610397
It is an ingenious piece of philosophical argumention, there is no denying that. It is a shame that all of it cannot have any persuasiveness if you don't accept hylemorphism.

>>8610456
Why would the teaching on the nature of man be the setting stone of his metaphysics?

>>8610468
lol what

>>8610471
Hylemorphism is the stance that man's essence exists in his form which is the union of the body and the rational soul.
Why would that be the foundation for his opinion on the nature of God being pure actuality?

>>8610397
If God was never created, then he has always existed. If God has always existed then there an infinite number of days between his "beginning" and today. If that were true, it would be impossible for today to have ever arrived.

>>8609328
nerds only get right what they want to get right

>>8610478
No, but that is a hylemorphic description of human existence. Hylemorphism is simply that things are composed of both 'matter' and 'form', as conceived by Aristotle. As for actuality, that is a similar but different principle which is about the distinction between 'act' and 'potency'. To crudely combine it with hylemorphism, form represents 'potency' and matter is its 'actualization' - but they are not interchangeable, nor is matter necessary for form to actualize, see: angels (according to Aquinas).

>>8610485
There is no measure of 'days', since God's existence does not rely on time, and is in fact outside of it. He is present in all 'our' time at once.

>>8610485
True, but the God of Aquinas does not stand at the beginning of time, he is outside it. Instead of perceiving it as the first domino, see it as the ground on which every domino stands. God exists outside of time, he is not eternal in the sense where he has always existed, because the term always can only be applied to something in time. He is being itself which enables the existence of the always in the first place.

>>8610498
Thanks for explaining that.
Every time I see the term mentioned is when discussing the nature of human beings, so I confused the two.

>>8610498
>>8610503
God being outside time presents a problem for Christianity though. Clearly God has created things within time (like his son), so you run into the problem of how a being could go from beyond time to operating within time.

>>8610498
>>8610503
Not to mention if god is outside of time, how can we use temporal language (God is good) to describe him? Wouldn't that negate the idea of a holy text?

>>8609328
Virtually everything, actually.

>>8610388
>"Hi! I love to prove that I don't understand the argument I am criticizing!" the post
FTFY

>>8610537
:')

>>8609566
St. Thomas considered the quinque viae to be very 'entry-level' philosophy; the sort of stuff you use to get first-year students to learn how to think. They are correct, just - simple.

>>8610456
>hylemorphism
*hylomorphism
Thomistic usages of hylomorphism have nothing to do with the nature of God. Even Greek hylomorphism was a description of physical matter.
As is quoted here
>>8610498
St. Thomas explains that this is a model for explaining why non-physical things do not need to become physical to act or influence.
The original statement is still nonsensical.

>>8610485
Time is just the perception of change. Before creation there was no change.
Besides, infinity is just a concept and obviously indoherent.

>>8610563
*incoherent
sorry

>>8610541
The argument is shit because it violates it's own premises, then

>>8610519
>>8610523
You are mistaking "time" for some sort of independent thing rather than just the perception of change.

>>8610563
The move from "no change" to "change" is incredibly difficult to explain, and arguably the subject of most medieval to early modern philosophy. And again you still have the problem of a changing god

>>8610570
>"I am still proving I haven't even grasped the meaning of what the premises are!"
Keep it up. You're getting more humorous every time you type

>>8610570
Let me save you from further embarrasment
ὃ οὐ kινούμενος kινε, or 'the unmoved mover' or 'the prime mover' is the argument that can be "incredibly simply) summed up as,
>"In the world we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing"
So you saying 'God must have something that moved HIM, too' means you don't get the core premise.

>>8610572
No. God can be unchanging and still have the ability to exert Will. You are getting Thomistic hylomorphism backwards - physical being can exert change on reality only by physical change; purely spiritual beings can do so without change. That is the point.
Now, if you reject hylomorphism, fine! But you still need to explain why a non-corporeal creature would need to change to exert influence within a consistent logical framework.

>>8610592
This is also easy to misunderstand. The prime mover for Aquinas isn't the first domino, but the principle which enables dominoes to fall in the first place.
Unless of course, I am the one doing the misunderstanding.

>>8610717
No, you nailed it.

>>8610388
this has to be bait at this point

>>8610752

I don't even think it is. He is channeling Richard Dawkins straight out of The God Delusion. He thinks that asking "who created god" refutes the cosmological argument.

>>8609328
Who does he look like? I feel like he looks a bit like Norm MacDonald, but there's definitely someone more apt. Sean Connery?

>>8610789
>He is channeling Richard Dawkins straight out of The God Delusion
Huh.
You're right.
I remember reading The God Delusion and laughing at how wrong he got virtually everything.

>>8610818
The portrait was based on Sean Connery.

>>8610789
>>8610752
tqbh I do this with concepts I don't understand so anons will explain it for me. Anons will spoonfeed you anything if they get to call you a retard in the process.

>>8610546

Hence my description of them as being "elegant." They are extremely powerful, as they form the foundation for Aquinas' entire natural theology as distilled throughout the Summa. There are few other arguments in the history of philosophy which are so penetrating.

>>8610388

This isn't even good bait anon.

>>8610818
Norm MacDonald definitely doesn't look as old or as full or as bald. Sean Connery has a beard so definitely not him. He does look like someone, but I can't figure out whom.

>>8610388
It's amazing how often people say this

>>8610546
Where has he ever said that

>>8612531
preface to summa:
>Because a doctor of catholic truth ought not only to teach the proficient, but to him pertains also to instruct beginners. As the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 3: 1–2, as to infants in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not meat, our proposed intention in this work is to convey those things that pertain to the Christian religion, in a way that is fitting to the instruction of beginners.