Religion hates mystery. Science loves mystery.

What is of interest is the misunderstanding and accusations of Aquinas. They seem endless and unhinged from his actual writing.
Let’s look at what he wrote.
From above
“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.”
This is simply a statement of scientific fact. The dependent variable cannot be its own independent variable. All science proceeds from this foundational premise.
” If it were, it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. ”
Another statement of fact. Nothing can both exist and exist prior to its own existence. This is purely logical.
Aquinas continues
“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.”
Aquinas points out that the cause most proceed the effect, and therefore be independent of it. That’s pure science. The independent variable must preceed the dependent variable.
To argue that this procession proceeds from infinity is simply to claim there is no independent variable to the entire system.
Infinity within a system may exist but cannot explain the initial formation of that system.
Again, Aquinas logic is flawless and this concept has been the basis of many modern astrophysics and quantum theories.
Aquinas continues
“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.”
You cannot claim an infinite regression of causes caused the system itself. Notice that Aquinas does not actually state that there isn’t the potential for an infinite series of events. He only points out that this possibility can only explain intermediary causes, and not the source of the whole system.
Again, it is flawless logic that adheres entirely to modern science, and that is because Aquinas writings were contributions to the philosophy of science.
” Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause,”
Here again Aquinas uses pure logic to conclude there must be an independent cause to all that proceeded from it, including any system of time or infinite causes and effects. This is flawless logic.
Aquinas doesn’t say this proves God exists. It only proves that something outside and independent must have caused all this. He is using the entire argument to disprove as entirely illogical the use of an infinite series of events to claim God doesn’t exist. In this he succeeds completely.
He adds
” which everyone calls ‘God.’”
Here again Aquinas doesn’t say this proves God. We don’t know what that cause is. He and those around him label it God. He openly acknowledges that this original cause can’t be known, just as modern astrophysics also struggles with attempting to model what came before the big bang. He simply accepts the label common in his own culture.
Aquinas does discuss this labeling in detail to point out this isn’t a proof, that it is simply a common premise of believers like himself. Indeed he points out it can only be a mental concept except someone choose to believe otherwise… But he is certainly free to point out the flawed arguments against God by others and does so flawlessly.
“Perhaps not everyone who hears this word ‘God’ understands it to signify something than which nothing greater can be thought, seeing that some have believed God to be a body [Aquinas earlier disproved this, indicating God cannot be a definable body]. Yet, granted that everyone understands that by the word ‘God’ is signified something than nothing greater can be thought, nevertheless, it does not therefore follow that he understands that what the word actually signifies exists actually, but only that it exists mentally. Nor can it be argued that it actually exists, unless it be admitted that there actually exists something than which nothing greater can be thought; ”
Aquinas points out that this premise is the basis of his argument, that God is something so great an idea that nothing greater can be thought. That is basically saying it is beyond comprehension. And it is entirely a choice whether to believe that or not…
” and this precisely is not admitted by those who hold that God doesn’t exist.”
He points out that Atheists simply don’t acknowldge this premise, and believers do. Very straightforward. Again, he is stating the fact that it comes down to the premises you believe. But as to arguments that God doesn’t exist, they are based upon flawed logic that is based upon a premise that what is beyond thought doesn’t exist. All science disproves this daily.

Actually we’ve already discussed Aquinas at some length here, Brian, at least twice that I remember.
One of those discussions would be in this thread: https://churchofthechurchless.com/2023/04/people-cant-define-god-any-way-they-like#comments.
(Actually this one touches on Aquinas, and the cosmological arguments as well, but isn’t about those arguments per se.)
And another time as well, unless I misremember, we’d discussed Aquinas, and in fact focused directly on his cosmological arguments. Except I can’t find that other thread using the search thing.

BTW
My citations of Aquinas come from.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological I, First and Second Articles
As for the title of this blog,
“Religion hates mystery. Science loves mystery.”
For Aquinas it is the exact opposite..
The Atheist argung against Aquinas uses the flawed argument of the closed system when they claim an infinite regression is all there is, that there is no actual primary cause to all these effects and their intermediary causes
The believer must embrace the mystery of what cannot be understood in order to appreciate the possibility of what else that is beyond explanation actually exists. That is the love of exploration, the love of science.
Aquinas attempts to prove that what is beyond explanation must exist, and all science adds evidence to support this every day. And that refutes the closed system argument of Atheism.
He only adds that he chooses to call this God, as a Beloved placeholder for what he himself says cannot be fully, understood, but only partially understood by examination, and observation.
It is the true enlightened believer, such as Aquinas, who openly acknowledges and embraces the mystery. And science.

Hi, Spence.
Check out what I said in the other thread, please, if you haven’t already. Like I said there, I’m copying my critique here, as well as the actual statement of Aquinas’s prime mover argument.
Go!

My complete critique of Aquinas’s Prime Mover argument, copied verbatim from my earlier comment addressed to um:
(Link: https://churchofthechurchless.com/2023/07/einstein-it-is-the-theory-which-decides-what-can-be-observed?cid=6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b#comment-6a00d83451c0aa69e202c1a6cddd76200b)
“ (…) There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing). (…)
(…) It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there’s no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That’s Albert Einstein 101. (…)”
—————————————————-
And here’s the text of Aquinas’s Prime Mover argument, copied verbatim from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica:
(Link: https://ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa/summa.FP_Q2_A3#:~:text=The%20first%20and,to%20be%20God.)
“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

Hi AR
I’ve addressed most of the points you’ve made, along with adding citations directly from Aquinas in support.
You have not addressed my specific replies to your specific comments.

Hi AR
I’ve addressed most of the points you’ve made, along with adding citations directly from Aquinas in support.
You have not addressed my specific replies to your specific comments.
——-
Haha, for once would you read my comment for comprehension, Spence? Just this once? It’s even in caps, so you can’t possibly miss it.

Hi AR:
As you requested, your entire comment as you reposted it in quotes ..with my comments from before added in brackets:
You wrote:
“ (…) There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. ”
[ If you are implying that time stretches on from and to infinity, there is zero evidence for that. Any measurable event has a beginning and an end. Therefore there is every reason to suggest, and indeed all of science, whatever you point to has had a beginning and will have an end. To suggest otherwise has no logical basis]
“Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing). (…)”
[ You failed to understand Aquinas argument. Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this. . Whatever that is, Aquinas points out, it’s a priori. He writes it is impossible to make any commentary on that at all, except to acknowledge that something that was not part of the potentiality which it instigated, started all this movement of creation. Independent as in independent variable, the basic foundation of science. Call that what you like. Aquinas says it’s what people call God, even though he also acknowledges it cannot be known.
[ To suggest what that prime mover is, as you have done above, introduces pure speculation without evidence. What you have accused Aquinas of, only you are guilty of.
[ But to prove there must be a start, an independent start is pure logic. And Aquinas ‘ argument for that is flawless and has become a foundational argument within the philosophy of science.
” (…) It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
[ Nowhere does Aquinas write what you wrote, that the stationary state is the” normal” status, or the starting state of every body. He never says that.
In fact he says everything we see is the effect, in essence it is all in motion in a chain of cause and effect. He uses common metaphors of motion to help explain that to every effect there is a cause that is separate or independent from the effect. He also uses the metaphor of one fire igniting another fire in another piece of wood which then ignites. He isn’t simply talking about physical motion but cause and effect. He goes further to explain the potential energy in the wood that becomes active, or kinetic energy, once ignited or moved. Again, Aquinas elucidates the concepts of independent and dependent variables, and their distinct relationship, as well as the concepts of potential and kinetic energy that are in fact distinct. He describes the two distinct states of energy, potential or kinetic, that Newton, Einstein, Heisenburg and others have used in their work: the very foundational principles of science and physics. Even quantum physics, which is largely the mathematics of how energy moves from potential to kinetic states through the effect of independent variables upon dependent ones.]
“Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there’s no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That’s Albert Einstein 101. (…)”
[ This argument depends upon your own invented interpolation, that Aquinas says all bodies start at rest, and therefore your argument is false.
Aquinas merely points out that there must be a first cause to all this and it must be independent, just as each dependent variable is acted upon by a separate independent variable. The dependent variable cannot be its own independent variable. Nor can the potential energy exist once it has been transformed into kinetic emery. Not according to Aquinas nor relativity nor quantum physics, nor any branch of science.]
You will note also earlier I cite Aquinas directly, word for word, for further elucidation.

Thank you! Didn’t take you long, did it?! And you do see how this makes for clarity, don’t you?
I’ll respond to this in one piece now, cheers.

@ Spence
>>Aquinas merely points out that there must be a first cause to all this and it must be independent, just as each dependent variable is acted upon by a separate independent variable.<< To me, without any academic capacity or interest in philosophy, readings this my reaction is .. as a crow can only sing as a crow, so can a human. OR .... as humans are made like many other things , to act, he cannot but THINK that there must be an actor behind the creation. He says ... there MUST be ... he cannot say nor did he say ...THERE IS And to my common sense nobody can, did or ever will be able. To think and to state there is an actor is an handsome tool to give meaning and direction to liife...nothing more nothing less. And those that believe that narrative in good faith and are not driven by any negative emotion, will enjoy the fruits of their believe, their faith Blessed are those that believe. It is not about the ACTOR, the creator etc but all about the BELIEVER There is no god that has any interest in a believer

All right, Spence, here goes:
I’m numbering these sections to make for ease of reference, and to make it easy for you to respond, section by section by section. This first section will be, hmm, let’s see, what can we call it, how about “Section-I”?
(SECTION – I)
“You wrote:
“ (…) There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. ”
[ If you are implying that time stretches on from and to infinity, there is zero evidence for that. Any measurable event has a beginning and an end. Therefore there is every reason to suggest, and indeed all of science, whatever you point to has had a beginning and will have an end. To suggest otherwise has no logical basis]”
……….Spence, Aquinas argues that “whatever is in motion, is put in motion by another”. That’s completely wrong, but I’ve addressed that error of his in a separate portion of my comment. For now, I’m granting him that, simply for the sake of the argument.
Whatever is in motion, is put in motion by another. That’s our starting point for this stage of the argument.
How Aquinas takes it from there, is by arguing, “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover …”
Don’t you see the circularity of it? It’s right here, plain as day! This cannot go on to infinity, he protests, because then there would be no first mover. That’s as blatant a case of begging the question as I’ve ever seen!
Even if we accept that whatever is put in motion, is put in motion by another, even then, there’s no reason at all why there should necessarily be an end to it, none at all. The one does not logically follow from the other.
On the contrary, there expressly CAN’T, there expressly WON’T, be such. If nothing can move without itself having been moved, then a Prime Mover simply cannot exist. Because a Prime Mover cannot, also, move, or cause something to be moved, basis the premises of this argument.
In other words: What Aquinas is doing here, isn’t “arguing”. What he’s actually doing here is simply POSTULATING a Prime Mover. And covering up that blatant ipse-dixitism within a mass of logicky-sounding words that seeks to simply camouflage what he’s doing.
He might simply have not said any of this, and simply announced, “There exists a Prime Mover.” In effect that’s what he’s doing, postulating the existence of this Prime Mover, and hiding his brazen postulation in a mass of meaningless words and pseudo-arguments.
———-
(SECTION – II)
“Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing). (…)”
[ You failed to understand Aquinas argument. Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this. . Whatever that is, Aquinas points out, it’s a priori. He writes it is impossible to make any commentary on that at all, except to acknowledge that something that was not part of the potentiality which it instigated, started all this movement of creation. Independent as in independent variable, the basic foundation of science. Call that what you like. Aquinas says it’s what people call God, even though he also acknowledges it cannot be known.
[ To suggest what that prime mover is, as you have done above, introduces pure speculation without evidence. What you have accused Aquinas of, only you are guilty of.
[ But to prove there must be a start, an independent start is pure logic. And Aquinas ‘ argument for that is flawless and has become a foundational argument within the philosophy of science.
……….On the contrary, Spence. It is you who’ve failed to appreciate Aquinas’s illogic, and to recognize his blatant sleight of hand.
Here’s what you say: “Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this.”
Where did this come from, this “whatever started all this”?! Within the bounds of this argument, this simply doesn’t follow. This has been plucked out of thin air, and simply postulated. This isn’t logic, this is sleight of hand hiding under a pretense of logic.
Every body that moves, has been set in motion by another body. From that we don’t, at all, get to “something that started it all”, unless it is simply postulated into existence.
You’re completely wrong. Aquinas’s logic is not only not “flawless”, but it is so utterly wrong, that it is completely nonsensical. It is no more than sleight of hand, with an ipse-dixitism smuggled in by the back door, with a Prime Mover simply randomly arbitrarily postulated out of thin air.
Like I said, this is pure bilge, written by a fool, else for consumption by fools.
———-
(SECTION – III)
Although you quote this portion of my comment, Spence, but I see that you don’t actually address it, at all. This:
“And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing).”
Should I take it, then, that you agree with this?
And that, by the way, is what I meant by asking you to try to make this discussion rounded.
You’ve read the other arguments of Aquinas, haven’t you? Every time he produces a pile of bilge, and ends with, “and this we call God”. Leaving aside the erroneous reasoning leading to “and this we call God”; and even granting him that for the sake of argument; there’s nothing that links those separate entities, and nor does that speak to the Christian God in any shape or form. He simply assumes that, without explaining why he does that. That’s …completely nonsensical.
Are we agreed on this? Or would you now like to go and do what you could have done already, which is pen down your response to this argument of mine?
———-
(SECTION – IV)
” (…) It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
[ Nowhere does Aquinas write what you wrote, that the stationary state is the” normal” status, or the starting state of every body. He never says that.
In fact he says everything we see is the effect, in essence it is all in motion in a chain of cause and effect. He uses common metaphors of motion to help explain that to every effect there is a cause that is separate or independent from the effect. He also uses the metaphor of one fire igniting another fire in another piece of wood which then ignites. He isn’t simply talking about physical motion but cause and effect. He goes further to explain the potential energy in the wood that becomes active, or kinetic energy, once ignited or moved. Again, Aquinas elucidates the concepts of independent and dependent variables, and their distinct relationship, as well as the concepts of potential and kinetic energy that are in fact distinct. He describes the two distinct states of energy, potential or kinetic, that Newton, Einstein, Heisenburg and others have used in their work: the very foundational principles of science and physics. Even quantum physics, which is largely the mathematics of how energy moves from potential to kinetic states through the effect of independent variables upon dependent ones.]
……….This part’s about present-day science, so this part isn’t on Aquinas, who can’t have known any of this. However, it is very much on present-day fanboys of Aquinas, like you, who have no excuse not to understand this elementary bit of science.
Aquinas does not say in so many words that “the stationary state is the normal state”, but he very clearly implies it, he clearly works with that base assumption, when he says, “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”.
That first starting clause of his is utter nonsense: the part where he says, “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” Complete nonsense, that. There’s zero difference between being stationary and being in motion. Both states are inertia. A stationary object remains stationary unless acted on; and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted on. No difference between the two. Isaac Newton 101.
Aquinas is simply channeling what was known in his day. I think that’s Archimedes, although I’m not sure, I’ll need to check. Again, not his fault. What else could the poor man do, but use the knowledge available to him? But you and I, in this day and age, know better, or should know better.
To tie this back to where we started this section from: In saying that “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”, in suggesting that being stationary is something that does not need a cause but that being in motion is something that does need a cause, Aquinas betrays ignorance of the principle of Inertia. Not his fault, but still, elementary Newtonian physics refutes that argument of his right at the get-go.
———-
(SECTION – V)
“Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there’s no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That’s Albert Einstein 101. (…)”
[ This argument depends upon your own invented interpolation, that Aquinas says all bodies start at rest, and therefore your argument is false.
Aquinas merely points out that there must be a first cause to all this and it must be independent, just as each dependent variable is acted upon by a separate independent variable. The dependent variable cannot be its own independent variable. Nor can the potential energy exist once it has been transformed into kinetic emery. Not according to Aquinas nor relativity nor quantum physics, nor any branch of science.]
You will note also earlier I cite Aquinas directly, word for word, for further elucidation.
……….As I hope you now see, now that I’ve opened your eyes by spelling this out for you slow and easy in the section immediately preceding, this isn’t my “invented interpolation” at all. It’s what is clearly implied by the very first words that Aquinas speaks here, it is clearly the base assumption Aquinas is working with, except you were not able to see this despite it sitting there plain as day. To repeat, to recap: “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”, which is how Aquinas begins his piece, directly implies that there’s a difference between being stationary and being in motion; and that being in stationary needs no cause, while being in motion does need a cause. Which is clearly refuted by Newton, as we’ve already seen. But beyond that, seen from a relativistic perspective, that’s completely nonsensical, because what is at rest in one frame of reference is in motion in another frame of reference, and vice versa.
Again, not something Aquinas can be faulted for not knowing. But certainly, present-day fanboys of Aquinas can and should and will be faulted for not appreciating this elementary bit of physics.
And there’s another spanner that Einstein throws in Aquinas’s apple cart, if I may mix metaphors, beyond just the above. The Prime Mover is defined as not in motion. Which is complete nonsense, because there is no fixed frame of reference at all, basis relativity. Something that is stationary in X frame of reference, will be in motion in Y frame of reference. Therefore, the Prime Mover also is in motion, no less than any other thing, depending on which frame of reference you’re using. The very concept of an absolutely unmoving Prime Mover is completed refuted by Relativity.

Whatever exist, is described can be described, is an unique variation of the same.
No description of the unique variation, no attributed value or meaning, no study will disclose the nature etc of the “sameness”
Science is the study of the endless variations of the unique and is an ongoing evolution of ever refining descriptions …in short there is no end to what science can and will discover, it will go on and on without ever being able to say a word let alone explain the sameness behind the unique variation.
The old ancestors knew it, and described it in their way, others will follow them and there descriptions will be different but what they have to say will remain the same.
Behind everything is sameness and that sameness they state is experiencable.
That is all they have to say.
That is all they can say.
Otherwise there is nothing tos say about that sameness and how the unique variations are related to that sameness.

Elephant in the room, Aquinas’ flawless logic leads us to accept the Catholic framework with all of its doctrinal baggage–creation in six days, Adam and Eve, virgin birth, angels, the devil, Jesus rose on the third day and wrought our savation, rituals, sacraments, papal authority, etc.
Have ye Aquinas fans followed the science and converted to Catholicism?

I recently mentioned the name of Thomas Aquinas merely as an addition to the list of premodern thinkers that Brian cited who certainly rejected philosophical materialism. Though Aquinas was a theist, his “classical” strain was what I think of as “monist-esque” to the extent that it was a kind of weak panentheism . I discovered this site by happenstance because of my interest in spiritual thought. As I read through some posts, I was fascinated by a perspective that clearly appreciated spirituality while at the same time rejecting its metaphysical basis. That’s not to say that a materialist can’t be “spiritual” , at least in a psychological sense, but not in a genuine sense. Tear down the spiritual super structure that supports it , “spirituality” loses it raison d’etre. On to the Angelic Doctor.
Bertrand Russell was a great thinker , but were his comments on Aquinas on point . No. I think Russell’s assumption that Aquinas’ religious belief is independent of reason is wrong, or at best, unevidenced. Of course, being raised Catholic , Aquinas will have been religious before he was able to give any reason to be, but this doesn’t imply that his later, mature faith was not rational. As he grew older, and became capable of reasoning about religion, and the world in general, it seemed to him that evidence confirmed his beliefs, but if it had not, it seems very unlikely that he would have remained Christian.
Aquinas is famous for his insistence on the importance of reason, even in the face of certain church authorities , who claimed that it ought to be subservient to faith; his reasoning was that if the Christian religion is true and reason leads to truth, then it makes no sense for the two to be in conflict. If he had found them to be in conflict- if, for instance, he was not convinced by his own Five Ways, and found contemplation useless, or the problem of evil irresolvable, and so on, then there is good reason to think he would have abandoned religion.
If this is true, then his religious belief is really no different, and no more intellectually suspicious, than the vast majority of the beliefs held by everyone- learnt, pre-rationally, in childhood, and later confirmed or rejected on the basis of mature reflection and experience. This does not, of course, show that his belief is justified- I’ve said nothing yet about whether the reasons for his belief are any good. It does, however, suggest that if Aquinas is to be criticized, it must be because of the quality of the evidence he uses, and not on the basis that his religious faith is independent of it . Perhaps we would do well to emulate Aquinas, who famously always made sure to treat his opponents charitably rather than Russell when we have criticisms to deliver.
I will try to get back soon to deal with the objections to Aquinas’ arguments .

@ Umami
What the personal intention of aquinas was I do not know but what i do know is, that everybody, whoever he was an whatever power at his possession, had, if he wanted to say something, present what he had to say as fitting within the frame work of the all powerfully church or otherwise handed to the forces like the inquisition.
Only after the WWII that power of the Christian clergy over everythingg in society has diminished
The works of St John of the cRoss make it clear that he after having all sorts of inner experiences, had to frame and hide his words in poetry in order to stay out of prison although he himself was a monk.
So against this background one has to decide whether aguinas was out the strenghthen the power of the church or not

Hi Appreciative!
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I’m not sure we are any closer, but you have provided opportunity to at least clarify what you are saying. I think at least we can get to a point of understanding what Aquinas actually wrote, and hopefully actually meant, and then opine on what we think about it.
For the sake of thoroughness I’ll address all your points. For the sake of brevity, I’ll break them into separate posts following the sections you have created.
I’m placing your comments in parentheses, and my new comments in double brackets, for clarity, and so you can scroll down to read whichever portion you like. Items in single bracket are my prior remarks .
“All right, Spence, here goes:
“I’m numbering these sections to make for ease of reference, and to make it easy for you to respond, section by section by section. This first section will be, hmm, let’s see, what can we call it, how about “Section-I”?
“(SECTION – I)
“You wrote:
“ (…) There’s no reason, at all, why that causal sequence shouldn’t go on indefinitely. There’s no reason for it to stop someplace. And even should it stop someplace, it doesn’t follow, at all, that that should be just the one thing. ”
[ If you are implying that time stretches on from and to infinity, there is zero evidence for that. Any measurable event has a beginning and an end. Therefore there is every reason to suggest, and indeed all of science, whatever you point to has had a beginning and will have an end. To suggest otherwise has no logical basis]”
“……….Spence, Aquinas argues that “whatever is in motion, is put in motion by another”. That’s completely wrong, but I’ve addressed that error of his in a separate portion of my comment. For now, I’m granting him that, simply for the sake of the argument.”
[[ Scientific Methodology separates as distinct the independent variable and the dependent variable in precisely the same way Aquinas speaks of the Cause and the Effect. Whatever is in motion is in fact put there, kept there, or moved to a different state / place by other forces. The Independent variable is indeed entirely independent in its effect upon the Dependent Variable. Aquinas is correct. Your statement lacks an understanding of this basic concept.
[[ ‘In research, variables are any characteristics that can take on different values, such as height, age, temperature, or test scores.
‘Researchers often manipulate or measure independent and dependent variables in studies to test cause-and-effect relationships.
‘The independent variable is the cause. Its value is independent of other variables in your study.
‘The dependent variable is the effect. Its value depends on changes in the independent variable.
‘Example: Independent and dependent variables
‘You design a study to test whether changes in room temperature have an effect on math test scores.
‘Your independent variable is the temperature of the room. You vary the room temperature by making it cooler for half the participants, and warmer for the other half.
‘Your dependent variable is math test scores. You measure the math skills of all participants using a standardized test and check whether they differ based on room temperature.
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/independent-and-dependent-variables/
[[ When you refer to quantum mechanics, consider the electron. It doesn’t move itself. It moves based on forces, independent forces, impinging upon it. Those forces exist whether or not the electron is there. The electron being there doesn’t create the mass of the nucleaus, nor even the acceleration of the particle, nor even the photons it emits as a result of excitation.
[[All subatomic particle and waves are explained as a result of other forces upon them. They don’t create themselves.
[[ Therefore, considering the entirety of creation, what is that independent force that moved the creation into being? Aquinas is merely extrapolating this immutable principle that is the foundation of all science. And further, he is pointing out the illogical argument, using “infinity” which is beyond measurement, that somehow all the lesser intermediary forces, that are themselves subject to previous independent variables, cannot explain God, as the greatest good that can be conceived. If there is a circular argument, AR, you are making it here.
[[ At best science can explain the intermediary forces. But Aquinas, as one of the Fathers of the philosohy of Science, rightly states that by the effects we see, something indeed can be learned about the causes including the proposed initial one. Indeed, this is the way to learn about whatever caused an event, deeper study of the results.
[[ Aquinas writes “Demonstration can be made in two ways: One is through the cause, and is called a priori, and this is to argue from what is prior absolutely. The other is through the effect, and is called a demonstration a posteriori; this is to argue from what is prior relatively only to us [these are still effects of other things that were truly a priori but may also be causes of things that come after]. When an effect is better known to us than its cause, from the effect we proceed to the knowledge of the cause. And from every effect the existence of its proper cause can be demonstrated [For example, subatomic particle trajectories used to extrapolate the other particles and forces impinging upon them], so long as its effects are betyter known to us [Aquinas, one of the Fathers of Science, advocating that independent variables can only be understood by study of their dependent variables]; because since every efect depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause must pre-exist.”
[[Any argument that dismisses science, therefore is without merit. And so the argument of infinity cannot be used as an explanation for how things came to exist. Only for how they may work today. Even so, Aquinas states that something can be known by carefully studying the effects. As I pointed out earlier, this is precisely what physicists are doing today, to understand what the conditions and forces were that created the big bang, or whatever actually happened. That very effort and all its results refutes as false any claim that the forces and effects we see today existed as they are and have for infinity. There is simply nothing in science to support that claim. It is unfounded.
[[ However, there is much science to support what Aquinas wrote…whatever started this creation, in whatever form, had to be independent of what it started. Or, you might say, that the conditions that resulted from that initial force changed into something different, what we see interacting today.
[[ When Aquinas distinguishes the independent variable, the cause, from the dependent variable, the effect,as in fact independent, he is echoing the fundamental basis for scientific inquiry.
[[ Aquinas also acknowledges the chain reaction of cause and effect that we see in two different ways and in doing so introduces a second foundational principle that has become one of the foundational premises of modern science:
[[He writes: “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. ”
[[First, Aquinas introduced the concept of independent variable and dependent variable, with the clear declaration that what the independent variable is in fact, independent of the dependent variable which it impacts. Now he introduces the concept that Newton initially expanded upon: Potential Energ, Kinetic Energy and the force that moves energy from a potential state into a kinetic state:
[[ “Potential energy is the stored energy in any object or system by virtue of its position or arrangement of parts. However, it isn’t affected by the environment outside of the object or system, such as air or height.
[[ “On the other hand, kinetic energy is the energy of an object or a system’s particles in motion. Contrary to potential energy, the kinetic energy of an object is relative to other stationary and moving objects present in its immediate environment. For instance, the kinetic energy of the object will be higher if the object is placed at a greater height.
[[ “Potential energy isn’t transferable and it depends on the height or distance and mass of the object. Kinetic energy can be transferred from one moving object to another (vibration and rotation) and is dependent on an object’s speed or velocity and mass.
[[ https://justenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/
you wrote:
“‘Whatever is in motion, is put in motion by another. That’s our starting point for this stage of the argument.
“How Aquinas takes it from there, is by arguing, “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover …”
“Don’t you see the circularity of it? It’s right here, plain as day! This cannot go on to infinity, he protests, because then there would be no first mover. That’s as blatant a case of begging the question as I’ve ever seen!”
[[ The circularity is actually in your argument that the cat can chase its tail and the tail therefore chases the cat. Aquinas, and all of science, says that can’t actually be. The tail chases nothing. The tail may sweep the floor in the process, and raise a lot of dust, and the dust can gather on the window and counters, but that dust, coming after, did not force the cat to chase its tail. You can follow all the dust particles the tail whips up, but you cannot claim therefore that this causes the cat to chase its tail. Certainly this dust came after and can’t be used in some sort of time loop to claim the dust the cat raised was the independent variable causing the cat to chase its tail to begin with. Aquinas rightly argues this is nonsensical and false. ]]
You write:
[[ Even if we accept that whatever is put in motion, is put in motion by another, even then, there’s no reason at all why there should necessarily be an end to it, none at all. The one does not logically follow from the other.]]
[[ No where does Aquinas propose an end to all these cascading effects we see. That is a non-sequitur.
You write:
“On the contrary, there expressly CAN’T, there expressly WON’T, be such. If nothing can move without itself having been moved, then a Prime Mover simply cannot exist. Because a Prime Mover cannot, also, move, or cause something to be moved, basis the premises of this argument.”
[[ You have gotten yourself into a tangle. You write ” If nothing can move without itself having been moved, then a Prime Mover simply cannot exist.” That is precisely why Aquinas proposes a true independent, a prior, variable. In defining the independent variable he points from above out that in what we can see, all things are a posteriori, so what appears to us is just one effect, one dependent variable acting to cause another dependent variable to move. That first variable is a dependent variable from another one up the chain, though it is an independent variable only relative to the next dependent variable down the chain. It isn’t the prime, truly independent variable further up the chain. But he claims rightly, there must be one for any motion to have begun at all.
“In other words: What Aquinas is doing here, isn’t “arguing”. What he’s actually doing here is simply POSTULATING a Prime Mover. And covering up that blatant ipse-dixitism within a mass of logicky-sounding words that seeks to simply camouflage what he’s doing. ”
[[ He is attempting to Demonstrate, not argue nor prove, and he does this flawlessly by defining independent variable from dependent variable, and potential from kinetic energy.
” He might simply have not said any of this, and simply announced, “There exists a Prime Mover.” In effect that’s what he’s doing, postulating the existence of this Prime Mover, and hiding his brazen postulation in a mass of meaningless words and pseudo-arguments.”
[[ Actually Aquinas is making an observation about potential and kinetic energy and independent and dependent variables that all science proves and further depends upon. A simple knowledge of this is all that is required to see that claiming “infinity” in a world of cause and effect, without actually understanding both effects and cause, is actually a resignation from the facts of science.
[[Aquinas honestly points out at best we can get only a middle understanding of God using the very practices that are used in all branches of science today.
[[ “When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence. ”
[[ Aquinas then applies this to his demonstration when he writes..
[[ “This is especially the case in regard to God, because, in order to prove the existence of anything, it is necessary to accept as a middle term the meaning of the word, and not its essence, for the question of its existence follows on the question of its existence [with each discovered cause the question can be asked, “Is this God, if not, what caused, and is that God? ad infinitum”]. Now the names given to God are derived from His effects; consequently demonstrating the existence of God from His effects we may take for the middle term the meaning of the word “God.”
[[ Aquinas isn’t attempting to prove anything. He is demonstrating how definitions and concepts about God get started, and suggesting by demonstration that God, whomever he/she/it is, must be whatever that truly independent variable that must exist must be (though it may be many things, as Science tends to unveil). And this is only so if you accept the definition of God not as some corporeal person, but as an infinite greatest good that can be conceived. It is a beautiful, elegant, entirely logical bit of poetry. ]]

Hi AR:
Here is the second section you wrote and my comments
You wrote:
———-
“(SECTION – II)
“Even should there be Prime Movers, there’s nothing in that reasoning that shows that there’s just the one Prime Mover: there may well be two, or ten, or a hundred thousand. And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing). (…)”
[ You failed to understand Aquinas argument. Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this. . Whatever that is, Aquinas points out, it’s a priori. He writes it is impossible to make any commentary on that at all, except to acknowledge that something that was not part of the potentiality which it instigated, started all this movement of creation. Independent as in independent variable, the basic foundation of science. Call that what you like. Aquinas says it’s what people call God, even though he also acknowledges it cannot be known.
[ To suggest what that prime mover is, as you have done above, introduces pure speculation without evidence. What you have accused Aquinas of, only you are guilty of.
[ But to prove there must be a start, an independent start is pure logic. And Aquinas ‘ argument for that is flawless and has become a foundational argument within the philosophy of science.
“……….On the contrary, Spence. It is you who’ve failed to appreciate Aquinas’s illogic, and to recognize his blatant sleight of hand.
“Here’s what you say: “Every effect has its cause, and that includes whatever started all this.”
“Where did this come from, this “whatever started all this”?! “Within the bounds of this argument, this simply doesn’t follow. “This has been plucked out of thin air, and simply postulated. “This isn’t logic, this is sleight of hand hiding under a pretense of logic.”
[[ See Independent Variable and Dependent Variable discussion above]]
You wrote
” Every body that moves, has been set in motion by another body. From that we don’t, at all, get to “something that started it all”, unless it is simply postulated into existence.”
[[ Actually, AR it is the only logical conclusion. Aquinas writes..
[[ “Therefore whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which is put into motion be itself put into motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as a staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.”
[[ Logically, there can be no independent force that initiates this creation unless it is separate from whatever series of events, even infinite series, takes place after. This is precisely what the work of modern theoretical physics is all about: What are the different forces that existed and acted before the big bang? Science has already proven they can’t be the forces that are in effect today. The issue I think that is hanging you up is the notion of Independent Variable. Aquinas points out that simply saying another variable caused this one begs the question of what caused that other one? If you summate this to infinity, as Calculus does, you must have a starting point. And having a starting point, what was that? What was that “primary mover”? Aquinas makes zero claim about that, only to say he believes it’s god.
[[ The point of the Primary Mover argument is to effectively, logically, dismantle the false argument that everything can be explained by what we see and know, claiming it was always this way, it is just a perpetual motion machine that never actually started but somehow is in motion. Aquinas proves this is false. And science proves that every day a new independent variable is discovered.
You wrote:
“You’re completely wrong. Aquinas’s logic is not only not “flawless”, but it is so utterly wrong, that it is completely nonsensical. It is no more than sleight of hand, with an ipse-dixitism smuggled in by the back door, with a Prime Mover simply randomly arbitrarily postulated out of thin air.”
[[ A deeper understanding of the method and philosophy of science will certainly help you to appreciate the elegance of Aquinas, and his contributions to the foundations modern of science.
You wrote:
“Like I said, this is pure bilge, written by a fool, else for consumption by fools.
———-

Hi AR
Here is the section III you wrote and my comments:
“(SECTION – III)
“Although you quote this portion of my comment, Spence, but I see that you don’t actually address it, at all. This:
“And finally, even should there be just the one Prime Mover, even then there’s zero connection between that entity and what we commonly know of as “God” — and to claim that is to take a compete gravity-defying flying leap. (Let’s not forget he’s basically arguing for the Christian God here. When he presents similarly lame arguments about …Perfection, for instance, then again that font of Perfection is, as he argues, “God” — without explaining why the Prime Mover should be the same entity as the Perfect Thing (even granting him these cross-eyed ideas about the Prime Mover and the Perfect Thing).”
“Should I take it, then, that you agree with this?
[[ If you read what I cited from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica I, section 1, you will see that Aquinas isn’t attempting to prove the Christian God at all. Your statement is false. He believes in scripture and it inspires him, but he only goes so far as to use the conceptual definition of God as that which is the greatest good that can be thought of, not to define God beyond that. Indeed he argues that we can’t really know God’s essence, only some inferences from the effects we can observe. And as we observe better, we get to know better. And getting to know those better, we understand better about what made all this…Pure science. He was an advocate for observation, understanding and reason.
[[ As for “one prime mover” Aquinas doesn’t make any statements at all about how this takes place, what multitude of other forces were put into action and how they worked. He simply argues that for this to exist and move, something had to give it potential and activate it into kinetic movement. And that something has to be independent of what it moves, just like an independent variable must be independent of the dependent variable.
[[ It’s a simple and elegant argument. It is certainly limited. He is quite clear on those limitations, that we can’t actually know. But he does a wonderful job defining key elements of science and dismantling the argument that a series, whether infinite or not, must have a beginning, and an independent mover, independent of all these downstream dependent variable must be the primary cause.
you wrote:
” And that, by the way, is what I meant by asking you to try to make this discussion rounded.
” You’ve read the other arguments of Aquinas, haven’t you? Every time he produces a pile of bilge, and ends with, “and this we call God”. Leaving aside the erroneous reasoning leading to “and this we call God”; and even granting him that for the sake of argument; there’s nothing that links those separate entities, and nor does that speak to the Christian God in any shape or form. He simply assumes that, without explaining why he does that. That’s …completely nonsensical.”
[[ Aquinas is not actually, nor ever attempted, to defend a Christian God. He uses his belief in God to apply reason based on what he sees. He never claims he has proven God exists, only that something must be there by disproving arguments against God. He is, in his logical arguments, a true agnostic, though his personal belief and the inspiration for his demonstrations is Christian.
You wrote:
“Are we agreed on this? Or would you now like to go and do what you could have done already, which is pen down your response to this argument of mine?”
[[ Yes, we do not entirely agree. Some of the things you write I agree with, but you have confused or not acknowledged Aquinas’ agreement with those very things, and other things it is clear reflect a need to better understand scientific principles. ]]

Hi AR
Here are the remaining sections (IV and V) You wrote and my comments:
You wrote:
“(SECTION – IV)
” (…) It is completely erroneous that the stationery state is the “normal”, starting state of every body. That’s completely wrong. A body that’s at rest continues to be at rest, and a body that’s in motion continues to be in motion. That’s Gravity 101, that’s Isaac Newton 101. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be bodies eternally moving: that’s what a moving body does, it keeps moving. That’s what inertia means. Aquinas’s “argument” falls flat right at the get-go.
[ Nowhere does Aquinas write what you wrote, that the stationary state is the” normal” status, or the starting state of every body. He never says that.
[ In fact he says everything we see is the effect, in essence it is all in motion in a chain of cause and effect. He uses common metaphors of motion to help explain that to every effect there is a cause that is separate or independent from the effect. He also uses the metaphor of one fire igniting another fire in another piece of wood which then ignites. He isn’t simply talking about physical motion but cause and effect. He goes further to explain the potential energy in the wood that becomes active, or kinetic energy, once ignited or moved. Again, Aquinas elucidates the concepts of independent and dependent variables, and their distinct relationship, as well as the concepts of potential and kinetic energy that are in fact distinct. He describes the two distinct states of energy, potential or kinetic, that Newton, Einstein, Heisenburg and others have used in their work: the very foundational principles of science and physics. Even quantum physics, which is largely the mathematics of how energy moves from potential to kinetic states through the effect of independent variables upon dependent ones.]
You wrote:
“……….This part’s about present-day science, so this part isn’t on Aquinas, who can’t have known any of this. However, it is very much on present-day fanboys of Aquinas, like you, who have no excuse not to understand this elementary bit of science.
‘ Aquinas does not say in so many words that “the stationary state is the normal state”, but he very clearly implies it, he clearly works with that base assumption, when he says, “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”.
[[ I understand your confusion. But if you realize that nothing in motion exists without independent forces that put it there and keep it there, then you will see this is correct. It is not a statement about static condition at all. You infer that, but Aquinas already has written, as I quoted above, that effects may cause other effects, so that what you see is continuous motion. Aquinas argues that what you see in motion is actually moving due to the effect of other independent variables that have (past tense) acted upon it and continue to do so.
You wrote:
“That first starting clause of his is utter nonsense: the part where he says, “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.” Complete nonsense, that. There’s zero difference between being stationary and being in motion. Both states are inertia. A stationary object remains stationary unless acted on; and an object in motion remains in motion unless acted on. No difference between the two. Isaac Newton 101.
“Aquinas is simply channeling what was known in his day. I think that’s Archimedes, although I’m not sure, I’ll need to check. Again, not his fault. What else could the poor man do, but use the knowledge available to him? But you and I, in this day and age, know better, or should know better.”
[[ You have failed to understand the causal relationship Aquinas points to between independent and dependent variables. He uses examples that include both stationary object, like the walking stick, and objects that are in motion and force other objects to be in motion as well, when he refers to effects that cause other effects.
[[ AR, if you know of an object that has been in perpetual motion without any identifiable beginning at all, please share it. It doesn’t exist. Even astronomical, atomic and subatomic particles have their origin. And they act today due to independent forces acting upon them, just as Aquinas wrote. The point you are making is entirely unscientific.
You wrote
“To tie this back to where we started this section from: In saying that “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”, in suggesting that being stationary is something that does not need a cause but that being in motion is something that does need a cause, Aquinas betrays ignorance of the principle of Inertia. Not his fault, but still, elementary Newtonian physics refutes that argument of his right at the get-go.”
[[ I think you may have argued yourself into a corner, AR. All objects are in motion, if not absolute then, as Aquinas himself wrote, Relative motion. They exist as a result of a Prime Mover, he writes.
[[ Your effort to bring in “static” is a concept that Aquinas and then accuse Aquinas of claiming anything is static is a circular non-sequitur . Indeed Aquinas is explaining all creation as the product of a primary mover. Therefore, all things move. The argument you are inferring for static state is your own. Aquinas is doing the opposite, demonstrating that all things are in motion, and have a beginning.
———-
You wrote:
“(SECTION – V)
“Not to forget Relativity. Not only is the stationery state not the normal starting point for every body; but there’s no such thing, in absolute terms, as body-at-rest and body-in-motion. And given that there’s no absolute reference frame, therefore the whole idea of a Prime Mover itself becomes completely nonsensical. That’s Albert Einstein 101. (…)”
[ This argument depends upon your own invented interpolation, that Aquinas says all bodies start at rest, and therefore your argument is false.
[ Aquinas merely points out that there must be a first cause to all this and it must be independent, just as each dependent variable is acted upon by a separate independent variable. The dependent variable cannot be its own independent variable. Nor can the potential energy exist once it has been transformed into kinetic emery. Not according to Aquinas nor relativity nor quantum physics, nor any branch of science.]
You wrote:
“You will note also earlier I cite Aquinas directly, word for word, for further elucidation.
[[ As have I above…
You wrote:
“……….As I hope you now see, now that I’ve opened your eyes by spelling this out for you slow and easy in the section immediately preceding, this isn’t my “invented interpolation” at all. It’s what is clearly implied by the very first words that Aquinas speaks here, it is clearly the base assumption Aquinas is working with, except you were not able to see this despite it sitting there plain as day. To repeat, to recap: “Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”, which is how Aquinas begins his piece, directly implies that there’s a difference between being stationary and being in motion; and that being in stationary needs no cause, while being in motion does need a cause. Which is clearly refuted by Newton, as we’ve already seen. But beyond that, seen from a relativistic perspective, that’s completely nonsensical, because what is at rest in one frame of reference is in motion in another frame of reference, and vice versa.
[[ I think I see where you have slipped. You wrote that Aquinas starts with ““Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” and then he goes on to prove there is a Prime Mover of all things. Everything is in motion, according to Aquinas. There aren’t some things that didn’t have a mover, as you have invented. All things started by a Prime Mover, according to Aquinas’ demonstration. You are attempting to claim he has said something entirely contrary to what he is saying. I get it.
You wrote:
” Again, not something Aquinas can be faulted for not knowing. But certainly, present-day fanboys of Aquinas can and should and will be faulted for not appreciating this elementary bit of physics.”
“And there’s another spanner that Einstein throws in Aquinas’s apple cart, if I may mix metaphors, beyond just the above. The Prime Mover is defined as not in motion. Which is complete nonsense, because there is no fixed frame of reference at all, basis relativity. Something that is stationary in X frame of reference, will be in motion in Y frame of reference. Therefore, the Prime Mover also is in motion, no less than any other thing, depending on which frame of reference you’re using. The very concept of an absolutely unmoving Prime Mover is completed refuted by Relativity.”
[[ Hm. Your understanding of relativity needs some work. Time, matter and space exist as posteriori events to creation, and fall right in line with Aquinas’ demonstration. Therefore one object can be stationary, though only relative to another. Since Aquinas doesn’t postulate a stationary object ever, even the Prime Mover, it makes no sense for you to invent this little wrench to throw into the machine you have invented.
[[ It’s an interesting conjecture, but again, a non-sequitur.

um,
You mean to tell me St John of the Cross had to hide his religious experiences from other religious people? Imagine his surprise!

@ Umami
He was the mentor / teacher of Teresa of Avila in a nearby monastery who is considered to be enlightened.. From reading his explanation on the flight of the soul in spiritual ecstasy to be found in the translation of his collected works I have here., and the explanation of the authors of the book on the circumstances of his life and his time, I got that impression… that his experiences did not correspond with the theology of those days and that he had to work around them to teach the nuns and stay out of the hands of the theologians ..he did spend some time in prison
Moreover, i found in his poems and explanations of them, hints about listening to and hearing inner sounds, celestial harmonies.

@ Umami
In general said, all mayor religions and in particular with Christianity and even more with the protestant offshoots of Calvin and Luther, become more or less state-religions in these parts of the world, mysticism is, to say it polite, “discouraged” and often made seen from the pulpit as “works of the devil”.
Religious establishments is always about books, law and order, mental control, power.
Roman Catholics were not even supposed to read the bible and for the protestants the bible is a book of law.
In western Europe where Protestantism was born we still feel the pain of the iconoclast , when the protesters started there REFORMATION and rivers of blood were shed.
Only the last decades that animosity between the two has calmed down …in Ireland that fire of hate is still alive.
Anyway both official interpretations shun mysticism as the pest. certainly for the lay people and those that are recluse are locked away and excomunicated if they dear to explain anything other than the dogma’s of the church.
Imagine how that must have been in the middle ages.

“If someone has to resort to dredging up some bit of pre-scientific philosophizing by Aquinas in an attempt to prove the existence of God, this shows that there is zero evidence for God other than what exists in the empty words of holy books and the equally mental gyrations of people desperate to convince others that God is more than a fantasy.”
Bullocks .
Quentin Smith, one of the most prominent atheist philosophers of the 20th century once said ” the great majority of naturalist philosophers have an unjustified belief that naturalism is true and unjustified belief that theism is false.” For their naturalism rests on nothing more than an ill-informed “hand waiving dismissal of theism” which ignores the “erudite brilliance of contemporary theistic philosophizing .” Smith continues :
” If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion( i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion , the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that ‘ no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,’ although I expect the most probable outcome is that naturalist , wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate .”
I agree . Not that Quentin Smith is some kind of ultimate authority like Bertrand Russell. I’m still trying to get to the straw man criticisms of Aquinas’ and do a little gyrating .

Lots of people – probably most people who have an opinion on the matter – think that Aquinas’ cosmological argument goes like this: Everything has a cause; so the universe has a cause; so God exists. They didn’t have no trouble at all poking holes in it . if everything has a cars, then what caused God? Why assume in the first place that everything has to have a cause? Why assume the cause is God? Etc.
Here’s the funny thing though. People who attack this argument never tell you where they got it from. They never quote anyone defending it. I think there’s a reason for that. The reason is that none of the best known proponents of the cosmological argument in the history of philosophy and theology ever gave this foolish argument. Not Plato, not Aristotle, not al-Ghazzali not Maimonides, not Aquinas, not Duns Scotus, not Leibniz, not Samuel Clark, not Mortimer Adler, not William Lane Craig, not David Bentley Hart. and not anyone else either, as far as I know. And yet it is constantly presented not only by popular writers but even by some professional philosophers as if it were “the “basic version” of the cosmological argument and as if every other version were essentially just a variation on it.
What defenders of the natural theology of Aquinas do say is that what comes into existence has a cause, or that what is contingent has a cause . These claims are different from “everything has a cause” as “Whatever has color is extended “ is different from “Everything is extended “.
Defenders of Aquinas’ Five Ways also provide arguments for these claims about causation. You may disagree with these claims – though if you think they are falsified by modern physics you are sorely mistaken – but you cannot justly accuse defenders of the cosmological argument either of saying something manifestly silly or contradicting himself when he goes on to say that God is uncaused.
Philosopher of religion Robert Koons explains that this argument in its most historically influential versions “ is not concerned to show that there is a cause of things which just happens not to have a cause. It is not interested in “brute facts” – if it were, then yes, positing the world as the ultimate brute fact might arguably be as defensible as taking God to be. On the contrary, the cosmological argument- again , at least as its most prominent defenders present it- is concerned with trying to show that not everything can be a “brute fact”. What it seeks to show is that if there is to be an ultimate explanation of things , then there must be a cause of everything else which not only happens to exist , but which could not even in principal have failed to exist . And that is why it is said to be uncaused – not because it is an arbitrary exception to a general rule, not because it merely happens to be uncaused , but rather because it is not the sort of thing that can even , in principle , be said to have had a cause , precisely because it could not even in principal have failed to exist in the first place .” And the argument doesn’t merely assume or stipulate that the first cause is like this ; on the contrary , the whole point of the argument is to try to show that there must be something like this.
But why assume the universe had a beginning at all ?

“…Whatever is in motion is in fact put there, kept there, or moved to a different state / place by other forces…”.
No, Spence. Whatever is stationary continues to be stationary, and whatever is in motion continues to be motion, is all. That’s base-level-elementary physics.
As for the rest of that skin-crawlingly disingenuous and literally nonsensical attempt at misdirection: Ick!

Although science, philosophy and religion can be interesting and perhaps throw some light on the questions that life throws up, apart from the technical issues of science, philosophical musings on these three subjects ultimately do not help. What they do support and strengthen is the idea that we are a particular self and mind and that we are/have a separate, autonomous mind and self – concepts that open the door to all manner of supernatural interpretations.
To wake up in the morning, experience having a wash, and perhaps tea and breakfast. Also, to step outside and experience the coolness of the morning air, the various sounds and sights – and basically, sense the body and the world as it presents itself at that moment. All these presentations that are natural.
Perhaps certain memories and thoughts arise, also natural. In fact, everything that is experienced is natural, none of it is ‘super’ natural, unless that is, if the past information we have absorbed contains various abstract ideas, beliefs and concepts – all natural processes – though beliefs and ideas that we may choose to label ‘above’ nature.
Nothing we experience through the senses, including the cognitive thoughts, memories and the conscious experience is unnatural. It is only the contents of consciousness – the information that is the mind and self – that desires to impose other-worldly causes for natural phenomenon.
Alongside the need for physical security and survival, it seems we humans have developed the need to similarly maintain our self-structures (our egos). This we do through various ways of making ourselves right, best achieved by making others wrong, it gives the self-structure a certain sense of meaning, of its importance. When it is realised that there is no self to realise and maintain, then nature – and the person – can return to feeling and being natural.

@ Ron E.
The ego is not a man-made construct, it is a natural suurvival tool, like the senses, the arms and legs etc.
And yes
We can use, the self for what it was meant for, like eating and procreation was/is, or we we can manipulate it for pleasure making it a goal instead of a means.

You’ve missed the point somewhat um. Never mind, this subject will come up again l’m sure.

@ Ron E.
What was it that I missed?

Ron . Maybe so . But that’s still philosophy .

“When it is realised that there is no self to realise and maintain, then nature – and the person – can return to feeling and being natural.”
I think it’s a bit more …involved, than that, Ron.
I mean, I agree with what you say, absolutely. But it actually goes way way way beyond that, doesn’t it? This goes to the very root of how we might conduct our life. What we expend time and effort on. Everything!
If truly internalized, this thing about us not having a self, it is something that can actually turn our lives upside-down, is what I’m thinking.
Which of course is a good thing, even should that happen. At least in the abstract. It can never be healthy to live a lie. Besides, that subsequent upside-down situation will almost never be actively malignant, is what I tentatively think about this.
But even so: At the individual level certainly, and collectively as well I suppose, if this understanding is completely internalized, as opposed to merely appreciated at a surface level as it were, then …there’s much that we might stop doing that we now carry on doing as a matter of course. I’m not sure how that might pan out for most people, who’re still in the hurly burly of life.

@ AR
self to realize etc
That are all ideas of others.
You are not born with them
Why bother?

Not sure I follow, um. Why bother about whether we have a self or not, do you mean?

@ AR
If nobody had spoken to you about selfs and certainly not about getting rid of it, you would not have known.
Now you know you have to go through so many teachings that speak about the self etc.
Almost with every reaction of me it is about … why do I, others do things, have toughts about them etc.
Why do people in the first place read books about mystism, go to guru’s etc etc .. because they have a reason and that reason has nothing to do with the self, these teaching, these guru’s.
So better address what is inside FIRST

“So against this background one has to decide whether aguinas was out the strenghthen the power of the church or not”
um,
Who knows? Maybe he was just a guy following his natural proclivity to think and write working with the clay at his disposal. The Church wasn’t a monolith. There were politics and infighting and competing philosophical strains. His family locked him away to keep him with the Benedictines, but he had ecstacies and visions and was going Dominican no matter what! Good story. I’ll copy and paste from Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas
“At the age of nineteen, Thomas resolved to join this Dominican Order. Thomas’s change of heart, however, did not please his family.[31] In an attempt to prevent Theodora’s interference in Thomas’s choice, the Dominicans arranged to move Thomas to Rome, and from Rome, to Paris.[32] However, while on his journey to Rome, per Theodora’s instructions, his brothers seized him as he was drinking from a spring and took him back to his parents at the castle of Monte San Giovanni Campano.[32]
“Thomas was held prisoner for almost one year in the family castles at Monte San Giovanni and Roccasecca in an attempt to prevent him from assuming the Dominican habit and to push him into renouncing his new aspiration.[29] Political concerns prevented the Pope from ordering Thomas’s release, which had the effect of extending Thomas’s detention.[33] Thomas passed this time of trial tutoring his sisters and communicating with members of the Dominican Order.[29]
“Family members became desperate to dissuade Thomas, who remained determined to join the Dominicans. At one point, two of his brothers resorted to the measure of hiring a prostitute to seduce him. As included in the official records for his canonization, Thomas drove her away wielding a burning log—with which he inscribed a cross onto the wall—and fell into a mystical ecstasy; two angels appeared to him as he slept and said, “Behold, we gird thee by the command of God with the girdle of chastity, which henceforth will never be imperiled. What human strength can not obtain, is now bestowed upon thee as a celestial gift.” From then onwards, Thomas was given the grace of perfect chastity by Christ, a girdle he wore till the end of his life. The girdle was given to the ancient monastery of Vercelli in Piedmont, and is now at Chieri, near Turin.[34][35]”
He wrote and wrote and wrote, spoke and spoke and spoke, prayed and prayed and prayed. In prayer sometime he was seen to levitate (purportedly). During a Mass six months before death he had a vision so powerful that he gave up writing. “Reginald, I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me.” He believed in the supremacy of the Church. On his deathbed: “I have written and taught much about this very holy Body, and about the other sacraments in the faith of Christ, and about the Holy Roman Church, to whose correction I expose and submit everything I have written.”
Visions and ecstacies might be more to the point, and importantly, do Christian mystics meet Hindu gods?

It would appear that this whole ‘search’ and all our questions stem from a dissatisfied, perhaps insecure and confused mind. The confusion does not come from our organism with its physical and cognitive senses, they are natural and uncluttered, it comes from the abstract ideas that we have absorbed from our cultures and that have been and are, utilised by an assumed self in order to maintain its illusory structure
The body/brain naturally needs for its survival to distinguish between me and not me but it does not need a self that produces an ego aspect which effectively separates ‘me’ from every-thing and everyone else. This separation, one could say, is the prime reason we desire to unite with something other, often something esoteric.
Our ‘search’ is a search for that state of unity, perhaps unity with nature and our own natures which we often fight with in one way or another in wanting to be different, special and perhaps enlightened or eternal.
Oh! and no-self can be realised quite naturally – without philosophy etc.

@ Umami
It is my personal understanding, and I have mentioned it here several times, ALL inner experiences are individual.
Whatever is experienced, is related to the person that has these experiences and the problems he faces, be they internal or external.
Further it is important imhu that whatever a person experiences in terms of how to act what to do either for himself or the community at large is not repeated.
So the divine sources that appeared before the Hebrew elders of those days were ordered to go to Palestine, the land of milk and honey and that that land would be forever theirs as they were the lords chosen people. No reason to disbelieve such a thing did happen. These things do happen. The “problem” is however that IF .. read IF … if there was a divine power outside the person receiving the order, that power failed to inform the elders of the tribes around the world.
Next St Jon wrote that if the divine wishes to touch the heart of somebody, he does so in “darkness” St John goes on to explain at length that although the temptation is enormous to believe they are, the visions that can go with that touch are NOT the touch of the divine. Moreover he says, the receptivity for these visions etc do open the door for all sorts of unwanted powers.
So Unami, I do not think people over here have visions of Hindu Gods.
After all we are Gora’s and do not indulge in curries and chai

@ RON
>> It would appear that this whole ‘search’ and all our questions stem from a dissatisfied, perhaps insecure and confused mind. << How does anybody know, came to know that there was something to search for? How can somebody get out of his house to search for a "treasure " if not FIRST somebody spread the message that there was an treasure to be found. Without somebody speaking of inner worlds etc, nobody would have known. And those that do not have these experiences better not seek based upon what they MADE of what they heard , whoever he is

Hi AR:
You wrote:
“No, Spence. Whatever is stationary continues to be stationary, and whatever is in motion continues to be motion, is all. That’s base-level-elementary physics.”:
I’m sorry but you have misunderstood basic physics. Inertia doesn’t explain how motion began. Yes, bodies in motion tend to stay in motion, and bodies at rest tend to stay at rest (although you could question what Newton’s definition of Rest actually is…it is relative BTW). However, you have avoided what Aquinas wrote, how bodies actually become in motion. That is the result of independent forces…Again, your ignorance of independent variables suggests a gap in your understanding of science and physics. No problem, we are all learning, as we identify our gaps.
If you believe any body of matter, be it astronomical or subatomic, actually is in motion all on its own without having been put there, or maintained there, by independent forces, please provide some scientific example and reference.

@ Spence
You know what is there, but you will never know how it came to be there.
Humans can research and work with what is there for their welfare but more than that is not possible and not needed … and … has been prove by history a source of bloodshed.

And AR:
Just to save you some time, orbiting bodies do not in fact operate without external forces keeping them going. As you may remember from your basic physics class, a body moving in anything but a straight line is accelerating as it turns, and therefore external force is acting upon it. Every body moving in an orbit is accelerating into an infinite number of points as it turns. So, while inertia can explain why a body may continue in space in a straight line, without friction nor further impact from other variables, in contrast every moon, every electron turns in its orbit due to the independent variable of the gravitational pull of its nearby planet or nucleus, which is exerting an independent force constantly upon that object. In these matters, Aquinas spoke truthfully.
A physics class might benefit you. Or a course in the Scientific Method and its history. You will be astounded!

“Even if we accept this argument’s logic, all it proves is that there was a first cause. It does not prove that this first cause still exists today; it does not prove that this first cause has any interest in or awareness of human beings; it does not prove that this first cause is omnipotent or omniscient or benevolent.”
The fact that anything exists proves there was a First Cause.
The fact that human beings exist as a result of this First Cause and have a moral nature that has benevolent interest in other human beings proves that this First Cause was moral.
Science has no explanation for how anything has come to exist. The universe’s origin — from nothing — is a complete mystery.
Science has no explanation for how life began.
Now, to the claim that “Religion hates mystery. Science loves mystery.” Seriously? Religion is all about loving Mystery!
Not merely Christianity, but all religions are essentially celebrations of the mystery of this First Cause. All religions recognize and revere this First Cause and inform us as to what that great fact tells us about our place in the universe, and how we may morally live our lives. This is true even of Buddhism, which though it doesn’t recognize a Creator, does in its own way honor the apparent moral order of the universe.
Science only loves mystery in respect to mechanical questions of “how does this work.” But the question of the really, really ultimate mysteries of how the universe began from nothing, and how life began from nothing? Many scientists seem to be frozen in rigid orthodoxy in their adamant refusal to even consider supernatural factors. That’s hardly “loving mystery.”

@ Sant Mat 63
>>The fact that anything exists proves there was a First Cause.<< Not at all it proves NO-thing and to love life it is not needed either

What the actual fuck, Spence.
Let it be. Just let it be.
I’ve no doubt we’ll have productive discussions again, another time. If you’ll forgive me for what is without doubt a lapse in courtesy on my part; and agree to engage with me again on another topic, another time, despite this. And if and when you choose to engage honestly.
For now, feel free to declare yourself the winner of the Internet debating cup. I don’t mind in the least.

@ AR
Do read hexagram 33 of the I ching
Just a random one … there are many others.
https://www.cafeausoul.com/oracles/iching/tun-retreat

“If nobody had spoken to you about selfs and certainly not about getting rid of it, you would not have known.”
Can’t say that makes sense to me. Because that would apply to any and every thing under the sun. Including the pleasure we derive from a good mug of coffee. …But that’s okay, not to beat this sidebar to death!
“So better address what is inside FIRST”
How do you mean? How would one do that, in your view? (Do you mean meditation? If so, it doesn’t have to be either-or, you know.)

@ AR
Do not take my words to strict and absolute.
If you sit down with some coffee and ponder about whatever you have stored in mind, and what you have stored there if you were not conditioned the first 25 years of your life to “hear upon others” , believing what you had to do with your life had to be told to you.
The world is a market place of interests. I do not say you should not go there but only for your own reasons.
How much of what you consider mentally yours is realy yours.?
Born from a deep mental hunger.
So why would anybody be interested in logic?
Why would anybody be interested in Buddhism?
Why would anybody Meditate?
After being involved for some decades in these movements, without any regret, I have come to realize that i embarked on a path without properly searching my own heart. first.
Yes if I would have done so probably I would never have spend a minute on any teaching and teacher and in do so I would have missed the interaction with the late MCS … and that AR would be a great pitty, very great pitty.
So try to understand what i am hinting at.
Remember my dads words .. I did not educate myself why would you?
Do not make the mistake to take his words to mean I should NOT educate myself.

“Everywhere we look, causes lead to effects that turn into more causes and more effects. Aquinas, like most religious people of any historical time, is uncomfortable with the mystery of existence having always existed. Me, I’m with those who find this idea hard to grasp and mystifying, but I don’t find it uncomfortable.”
If someone is this discussion is uncomfortable, it’s not Aquinas! But as is usual whenever this topic of the origin of the universe and life. it’s those of an atheistic bent who squirm when trying to explain the mystery of How Anything Is.
They say, “the universe and nature probably always existed. Yeah, that’s it.”
But how is “it just was always here” a answer? Seems more like an avoidance of the question. Surely it’s at least possible that an Intelligent First Cause could have been the reason for this incredible universe?
“SHUP UP!!! THERE IS NO GOD, THERE CANNOT BE GOD, NO, NO NO.”
Well, they don’t really say t h a t, but you can tell that’s the bias that completely informs whatever they say on this topic.
Wish they’d just for once say “I don’t know.” Not that I care really. But this total lack of willingness to even consider God as a possibility makes this a church of atheist dogma rather than the openminded forum it pretends to be.

@ Sant Mat xx
Why do you want there to be a god?
Read history and see what that desire for an existence of a god has done in terms of misery?
Great Master wrote:
FIRST came men, later religions were instituted.
Why?
for the evolution of his soul.
I have no idea what at soul is and whether I have one
And would like to use MCS rhetoric question.
Brother what is YOUR concept of soul, god etc.
Mind you I am not saying a word about GOD .. only something aboyt the USE humans make about a concepted created by them.

Hi AR
You wrote:
“For now, feel free to declare yourself the winner of the Internet debating cup. I don’t mind in the least.”
Brian attempted at one time to claim I lost a debate. My reply was that the game judge was drunk. Brian thought I was speaking of him, but no. We are all drunk, and the evidence is that here we are at the bar sipping hard alcohol of our own dogmas together, trying to claim the other is drunk but we are all.
There is no score. In the game of divine love there is zero score, and no barriers between anyone.
If there is connection, everyone wins. And the person who learned something new? They are actually the greatest winner. Both are winners if they can understand the opposite view better.
Your complaints about Augustine were good complaints from your perspective, and some of them remain solid statements, though Aquinas may not be the appropriate target. He didn’t prove what the Prime Mover is…it could have been another series of events as you suggest. We know it had to be before all this, but that’s as far as he can go. And he admits as much. All his personal choice in believing that’s God is separate, and he is honest about that. His arguments are largely agnostic though he himself is a devout Christian.Yet, he contributed to the very foundations of science tools every scientist uses today.
Where Aquinas says we can only understand the causes by studying the effects, he is encouraging scientific inquiry and humbly resigns himself from attempting to prove any details about the creator at all, except that something came first and it had to be entirely independent of the creation. Logically that makes sense. Of course, your point that logic is bound and vulnerable to the premises we know is correct. Add a few new ones and what was entirely and elegantly logical may no longer be. But as for today, it is, and the conclusion we reach is that we should learn more about what we can observe and / or measure, whether within or in our world. Believe it or not, that is the only useful takeaway from Aquinas ‘ demonstration, and it is a conclusion I believe he would encourage.

@ Spense
The law of cause and effect is paramount in the universe that is available to all of us and to science.
It does not explain anything else beyond itself and the universe
Those that have tried to do that are like people that want to scoop water with a thieve
or the proverbial Baron Munchhausen that decided to pull himself out of the quagmire by pulling his own boots….. it doesn’t water how eloquent the writer is, however praised as theologian, philosopher.
Humans tend to think as humans, in a human way about everything even about what they consider to be the creator of them.
They think they have to know, that they can know and to live a life as a hiuman being it is neither neccessary to pose that question let alone come up with an answer and fool the ignorant.

Why are atheists, atheists? Are they more intelligent and perceptive than the rest of us? Or do social factors have a major role in forming their lack of belief in God?
Bad or Absent Fathers can be a Strong Indicator of Atheism
This factor was present in the lives of famous atheists Freud, Marx, Feuerbach, Baron d’Holbach, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, Schopenhauer, Hobbes, Samuel Butler, H. G. Wells, Carlyle, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, and Albert Ellis.
Paradoxically, Bad or Absent Fathers is also extremely common with those who join a cult. I’ve been a member of several fringe religions, and every single person I knew in those religions did not have a good relationship with their father.
Joining a cult then is an effort to find a replacement for the absent father figure. Atheism is an effort to express resentment at one’s father.

@ Santmatt
So … as they are born from a FATHER, the universe must be born from a FATHER.
Believers think there is one and those that according you, had not build an relationship with their biological father, do not want to believe that the universe has a father.
Funny … time to make myself a cup of coffee.

I don’t fucking believe this.
Spence, that last comment of mine, the one where I listed out all of your critiques in a single section, that was the end of it. That’s not someone declaring themselves the winner, that actually was the end of it.
Cerntainly I’m willing enough to engage with you, that’s what rational discourse is about.
But your subsequent comments, where you went through the motions of responding to the points made, that was so skin-crawling disingenuous as to be completely disgusting. It’s …skin-crawling, that …flow of thought.
Do you seriously think that, THAT, was some kind of …thing to be proud of? It would take no more than a sneeze to point out the absurdity of what you’re saying, from that point on.
But only a fool engages with this kind of …disingenuity, this kind of loathsome thought process. This is … I mean, this is, completely …sick!