Argument from Degree of Perfection

[Quintessence]

The problem with Aquinas' entire argument here is it hinges on outmoded hierarchical thinking that is pretty much refuted in the life sciences. There are no "higher organisms" and "lesser organisms" there are just organisms. Back in his time, the Great Chain of Being was a popular mythology - and it still is today, sadly, in spite of it being thoroughly debunked.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was wondering what people's views were on Thomas Aquina's Fourth Proof of the existence of God the "argument from degrees of perfection". In essence, that there must exist something- a being- who represents the top of the hierarchy in nature as an "absolute" or standard of perfection. (i.e. God).

Here are Aquinas' own words: The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

As Formulated by Robert J. Schihl it goes something like this:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

Do you think Aquinas' is right? Or is there a way to refute this argument?

This is one of Aquinas's more ridiculous arguments, IMO. In the form above, it can be refuted by the fact that some properties are inherently mutually exclusive, so it's impossible to have all properties to the maximal degree: for instance, something that's maximally wet cannot be maximally dry.

Actually, now that I look at it:

- 2 does not follow from 1. The fact that one thing exists does not necessarily imply that some other thing exists.
- 3 does not follow from 2 (as described above).
- 4 does not follow from 3. No definition of "God" (other than possibly one made up expressly for the purpose of this argument) I've ever seen matches 3.

 

[Milton Platt]

I was wondering what people's views were on Thomas Aquina's Fourth Proof of the existence of God the "argument from degrees of perfection". In essence, that there must exist something- a being- who represents the top of the hierarchy in nature as an "absolute" or standard of perfection. (i.e. God).

Here are Aquinas' own words: The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

As Formulated by Robert J. Schihl it goes something like this:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

Do you think Aquinas' is right? Or is there a way to refute this argument?

How do you determine the the entity that has all properties to the maximum degree is a god??? Maybe he is just the smartest human on the planet, or the smartest being on an unknown planet?

 

[Milton Platt]

I was wondering what people's views were on Thomas Aquina's Fourth Proof of the existence of God the "argument from degrees of perfection". In essence, that there must exist something- a being- who represents the top of the hierarchy in nature as an "absolute" or standard of perfection. (i.e. God).

Here are Aquinas' own words: The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

As Formulated by Robert J. Schihl it goes something like this:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

Do you think Aquinas' is right? Or is there a way to refute this argument?

1. So what?
2. But what is the maximum extent possible of a given property?
3. As stated by others, premise 3 does not follow from premise 2.

 

[Quintessence]

This is one of Aquinas's more ridiculous arguments, IMO. In the form above, it can be refuted by the fact that some properties are inherently mutually exclusive, so it's impossible to have all properties to the maximal degree: for instance, something that's maximally wet cannot be maximally dry.

It works for certain god-concepts, such as monotheistic pantheism. When god is all things, god is maximally all things, even if those things contradict. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch that this logic could apply to a transcendent deity like the Christian god, a god-concept that seems deliberately abstract, paradoxical, and obtuse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It works for certain god-concepts, such as monotheistic pantheism. When god is all things, god is maximally all things, even if those things contradict. It doesn't seem too much of a stretch that this logic could apply to a transcendent deity like the Christian god, a god-concept that seems deliberately abstract, paradoxical, and obtuse.

I don't think it does work even in those cases. A pantheistic deity could have one aspect that's "maximally wet" and one that's "maximally dry"... or maybe "maximal wetness" and "maximal dryness" could both be expressions of some sort of underlying divinity. Still, though, to the extent that a deity is "maximally dry", it isn't "maximally wet" and vice versa.

Another way of looking at it is to think of "maximally dry" as "the opposite of maximally wet" and vice versa. A deity that embodies "maximal dryness" can also be said to be as far as possible from "maximal wetness."

Anything that's maximally wet is also as far as possible from maximally dry, so if we propose something that has both traits - which *is* contradictory, even for a god - it's just as valid to say that it has neither trait as it is to say it has both.

 

[Tumah]

I was wondering what people's views were on Thomas Aquina's Fourth Proof of the existence of God the "argument from degrees of perfection". In essence, that there must exist something- a being- who represents the top of the hierarchy in nature as an "absolute" or standard of perfection. (i.e. God).

Here are Aquinas' own words: The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

As Formulated by Robert J. Schihl it goes something like this:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

Do you think Aquinas' is right? Or is there a way to refute this argument?

Is he saying that G-d arises from nature?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is he saying that G-d arises from nature?

Good point. His argument sure seems to imply that God is at the pinnacle of nature's hierarchy, but still part of that hierarchy.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think it does work even in those cases. A pantheistic deity could have one aspect that's "maximally wet" and one that's "maximally dry"... or maybe "maximal wetness" and "maximal dryness" could both be expressions of some sort of underlying divinity. Still, though, to the extent that a deity is "maximally dry", it isn't "maximally wet" and vice versa.

Another way of looking at it is to think of "maximally dry" as "the opposite of maximally wet" and vice versa. A deity that embodies "maximal dryness" can also be said to be as far as possible from "maximal wetness."

Anything that's maximally wet is also as far as possible from maximally dry, so if we propose something that has both traits - which *is* contradictory, even for a god - it's just as valid to say that it has neither trait as it is to say it has both.

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. The paradox makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I've been comfortable with paradoxes for... well, most of my life, really.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, now that I look at it:

- 2 does not follow from 1. The fact that one thing exists does not necessarily imply that some other thing exists.

^ this

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm afraid I don't follow what you're saying. The paradox makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I've been comfortable with paradoxes for... well, most of my life, really.

If a thing is maximally dry, it's not maximally wet; in fact, it's the opposite of maximally wet.

If a thing is maximally wet, it's not maximally dry; in fact, it's the opposite of maximally dry.

One thing can't be both maximally wet and maximally dry simultaneously.

 

[Tumah]

This is one of Aquinas's more ridiculous arguments, IMO. In the form above, it can be refuted by the fact that some properties are inherently mutually exclusive, so it's impossible to have all properties to the maximal degree: for instance, something that's maximally wet cannot be maximally dry.

Actually, now that I look at it:

- 2 does not follow from 1. The fact that one thing exists does not necessarily imply that some other thing exists.
- 3 does not follow from 2 (as described above).
- 4 does not follow from 3. No definition of "God" (other than possibly one made up expressly for the purpose of this argument) I've ever seen matches 3.

I think by maximal here he is looking at hierarchy, not polarity. So the hottest thing (fire according to the OP's quote) would be the top of the hot hierarchy and I'd guess that the coldest thing would have its own separate hierarchy. They'd be side by side hierarchies under a more encompassing one of some sort.

If you categorize everything within an hierarchy, then there should be an apex somewhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think by maximal here he is looking at hierarchy, not polarity. So the hottest thing (fire according to the OP's quote) would be the top of the hot hierarchy and I'd guess that the coldest thing would have its own separate hierarchy. They'd be side by side hierarchies under a more encompassing one of some sort.

If you categorize everything within an hierarchy, then there should be an apex somewhere.

But that's not how things work in reality. Things get colder by getting less hot. The increase of one is the decrease of the other.

And many other characteristics that aren't opposite poles of a spectrum are still mutually exclusive. "Maximally soft" is incompatible with "maximally scaly." "Maximally just" is incompatible with "maximally merciful." If you've achieved the highest possible lifetime score in bowling, then you've achieved less than your highest possible lifetime score in tennis (since whatever your lifetime score in tennis, you could have scored more points in tennis by diverting some of your effort away from bowling).

Short version: the hierarchies aren't independent of each other.

 

[idav]

But that's not how things work in reality. Things get colder by getting less hot. The increase of one is the decrease of the other.

In reality the energy does not get lost it transforms, thermal law of dynamics ensures there is always a balance.

The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems at thermal equilibrium.
Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia

 

[Quintessence]

If a thing is maximally dry, it's not maximally wet; in fact, it's the opposite of maximally wet.

If a thing is maximally wet, it's not maximally dry; in fact, it's the opposite of maximally dry.

One thing can't be both maximally wet and maximally dry simultaneously.

Except you can if you're everything... as is the case with something like monotheistic pantheism. Monotheistic pantheism regards the universe/god as one thing. The one thing encompasses all things, so the one thing is maximally everything (and minimally everything) all at the same time. Makes sense to me, and I'm not even a monotheistic pantheist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was wondering what people's views were on Thomas Aquina's Fourth Proof of the existence of God the "argument from degrees of perfection". In essence, that there must exist something- a being- who represents the top of the hierarchy in nature as an "absolute" or standard of perfection. (i.e. God).

Here are Aquinas' own words: The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call God.

As Formulated by Robert J. Schihl it goes something like this:

1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
3. So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
4. Hence God exists.

Do you think Aquinas' is right? Or is there a way to refute this argument?

Yes there is.

The standard of perfection at least for what we know, is pretty much a little tiny atom. Or to go far "bigger", quarks and gluons.

Apparently God, in that case, is smaller than an atom and its components.

Imagine where a God would be without the little buggers.

Hence no God exists. Taking linear thinking to the bottom of this "divine" barrel.

 

[Laika]

Is he saying that G-d arises from nature?

In so far as Aquinas is asserting a Hierarchy of complexity exists in nature, I think God would appear to be at the "top" of the pyramid in nature. I'm not sure as this is my first venture into Aquinas's theology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In reality the energy does not get lost it transforms, thermal law of dynamics ensures there is always a balance.

In a closed system overall. I was talking about specific things within a system: you don't make sonething cold by "adding cold;" you make it cold by removing heat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Except you can if you're everything... as is the case with something like monotheistic pantheism. Monotheistic pantheism regards the universe/god as one thing. The one thing encompasses all things, so the one thing is maximally everything (and minimally everything) all at the same time. Makes sense to me, and I'm not even a monotheistic pantheist.

It doesn't make sense to me. It seems that the mistake is right at the beginning: assuming that "you are everything" is a coherent idea just because it's expressed in a grammatically correct way... like Bertrand Russell's example of trying to evaluate the phrase "the present king of France is bald."

Take something that's maximally hot and combine it with something that's maximally cold and you get a combination that's lukewarm - i.e. neither maximally hot not maximally cold - not something that has both traits.

Bottom line: logical impossibilities are, by their nature, impossible. It can be fun to throw words around with inherent contradictions, but as long as those contradictions are there, you aren't expressing anything meaningful.

When you say something is "maximally everything (and minimally everything) at the same time," you may as well be saying that it's as tall as the colour blue is angry. It isn't even that the concept you're describing doesn't exist; your words don't even describe a concept.

 

[Quintessence]

Some people are comfortable with abstractions and paradox, others aren't. Doesn't much matter either way - seems more important to recognize that even if something doesn't make sense to us, it probably does to someone else.

I mean, on the whole I don't agree with Aquinas' argumentations, but when I set aside my usual map of the territory for a while, I get it. Or try to, anyway. Sometimes I fall a bit short of understanding maps of the territory that are radically different from my own. It can't be helped.