Argument from Degree of Perfection

[Laika]

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?

 

[viole]

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?

We can see that Aquina's conclusion is a non sequitur with a simple example.

Let's consider the toy universe consisting of all positive numbers strictly smaller than 1.

And let's introduce the following degree of perfection: x is more perfect than y, if x bigger than y (and therefore closer to 1). So, 9/10 is more perfect than 1/2, for example.

However, it is easy to see that there is no entity in that universe that is more perfect than all the others. No matter how close to 1 a number is, we can always find one that is closer. Ergo, there exists no number in that universe that represents the highest level of perfection.

Therefore, the conclusion that there must exist an entity that maximizes all degrees of perfection, once we observe that such degrees of perfection are defined and exist, is logically unwarranted.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Terese]

My theist mind approves

 

[Revoltingest]

Watching Aquinas perform logic is like watching a fish ride a unicycle.
These things just don't get along with each other.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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?

If a radioactive isotope has the property of generating heat, then there must be an object in our universe that generates an infinite amount of heat?

If such an object produces an infinite amount of heat, wouldn't that infinite heat be disbursed throughout the entire universe infinitely?

Or is there a maximum amount of heat possible in our universe? What are the physical laws that determine the maximum allowable heat in a given object? Do we base that maximum heat on the mass of such an object, or maybe it's surface area?

It's also possible, given entropy, that any given property will change over time. The isotope in question may generate x amount of heat over a given timeframe now, but as it decays, the heat distribution will lessen over time, and eventually become cold.

So now we have the consider the timeframes of properties of these objects. You can't presuppose objects maintain the current proerties the have for eternity, so as properties change or disappear, the concept of maximally won't apply the same way.

I'm not exactly sure what there is to refute. It's the kind of nonsense argument that might be made by an intelligent 13th century human with no understanding of the physical world and too much time on his hands. My 8 year old daughter knows more about science that Thomas Aquinas could have ever known. . . Don't let this argument trouble you. It's nonsense.

 

[Jumi]

It assumes that the world of ideas of the mentioned philosophers exists. If we assume it, there is a perfect everything. For him, the perfect of these categories is the one thing or God. And if there is a good God, then he is right. I wouldn't call it a proof, but for someone who accepts the world of ideas as part of their theology, it must have been a cornerstone.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Perfection is poorly defined. Also, a human is an apex predator until it meets up with something like a bear or shark. The first shall become last ...

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

My theist mind disagrees.

 

[Rinchen]

We are the ones who define objects as lesser and greater (hierarchy), they are a subjective projection, not objective realities. The whole basis of the argument is quite non-existent. Sometimes logic isn't so logical.

 

[PureX]

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

Sure. The way to refute the argument is to point out that "degree" is a phenomena of cognition, not of physical reality. In reality there is no "cold" or "hot". There is only temperature (a designated type of motion energy) being cognated in incremental terms relative to the human body and mind that's doing the cognating. "Hot" is hot to the touch. How hot is determine by an arbitrary scale of heat-energy differentiation between the human skin and the object in question. This scale does not require that there be an absolute etreme to anchor each end because the scale quantifies from idealized opposites, projecting outward from a central point. That point being us.

Hot is hot to the touch. Cold is cold to the touch. Neither requires that there be any absolute hot or absolute cold to define or determine how hot or how cold because we are the definer and determiner. Something is how hot or how cold according to how different it is in temperature from us; not from each other. There is no hot or cold in the 'real world'. There is only hot and cold in our experiential cognition of the real world.

 

[sun rise]

We can see that Aquina's conclusion is a non sequitur with a simple example.

Let's consider the toy universe consisting of all positive numbers strictly smaller than 1.

And let's introduce the following degree of perfection: x is more perfect than y, if x bigger than y (and therefore closer to 1). So, 9/10 is more perfect than 1/2, for example.

However, it is easy to see that there is no entity in that universe that is more perfect than all the others. No matter how close to 1 a number is, we can always find one that is closer. Ergo, there exists no number in that universe that represents the highest level of perfection.

Therefore, the conclusion that there must exist an entity that maximizes all degrees of perfection, once we observe that such degrees of perfection are defined and exist, is logically unwarranted.

Ciao

- viole

That is actually a statement of Zeno's paradox which has been solved.

To the OP, I don't believe that there is any logical proof that God exists. Counter-arguments can and have been constructed to every such attempt.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

It is a fallacy to assume that that being cannot be man, or some other creature that is not a god. The argument is basically that if you can imagine lesser and greater degrees of a quality, there must exist something that has this quality infinitely.

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.

This is obviously wrong. Something that has that property to a greater degree than anything that presently exists may exist in the future. It is not true that for any given property, there must be something having it to the maximum possible degree.

Consider intelligence. Once again, it is logically possible that man is the most intelligent thing in the universe, and our descendants may be more intelligent.

Didn't the oldest thing in the universe get older today?

thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat,

Spoiler: digression

This is the kind of science we are used to from the past. Body heat, for example does not come from fire, although it does come from a process similar to that which creates flames - oxidation - but there's no fire.

Rusting is also oxidation, and thus exothermic (releases energy) - but also not fire.

Is it right to call the sun burning or on fire like a burning log? The process releasing light and heat isn't any form of oxidation, which is a chemical process involving electron transfer. The sun generates heat via a nuclear process.

 

[crossfire]

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?

Aquinas' ego (conscious reasoning) was hijacked by his superego (that which defines and strives for "perfection") in this argument, imo.

 

[osgart]

I can't find one perfect thing about the universe. Aquinas' proofs are childish. there is no such measuring stick of perfection.

we are all bound to the indifference of the universe. if logic alone could determine that God exists, than everybody's logic passes as evident somewhere.

my logic is that intelligence must pre exist for intelligent life to form. I am not willing to call this intelligence God. but logic alone proves nothing without basis in the known physical world.

all logic to me is hypothetical in regards to evidence of what is in reality, and why it's there.

 

[ChristineM]

If a radioactive isotope has the property of generating heat, then there must be an object in our universe that generates an infinite amount of heat?

If such an object produces an infinite amount of heat, wouldn't that infinite heat be disbursed throughout the entire universe infinitely?

Or is there a maximum amount of heat possible in our universe? What are the physical laws that determine the maximum allowable heat in a given object? Do we base that maximum heat on the mass of such an object, or maybe it's surface area?

It's also possible, given entropy, that any given property will change over time. The isotope in question may generate x amount of heat over a given timeframe now, but as it decays, the heat distribution will lessen over time, and eventually become cold.

So now we have the consider the timeframes of properties of these objects. You can't presuppose objects maintain the current proerties the have for eternity, so as properties change or disappear, the concept of maximally won't apply the same way.

I'm not exactly sure what there is to refute. It's the kind of nonsense argument that might be made by an intelligent 13th century human with no understanding of the physical world and too much time on his hands. My 8 year old daughter knows more about science that Thomas Aquinas could have ever known. . . Don't let this argument trouble you. It's nonsense.

Heat? There is a theoretical minimum of 0k where all thermal motion ceases.

as for an infinite maximum amount of heat, no, for an infinite maximum occurred an infinite amount of energy would be required, hence no mass, no people, no you.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Heat? There is a theoretical minimum of 0k where all thermal motion ceases.

as for an infinite maximum amount of heat, no, for an infinite maximum occurred an infinite amount of energy would be required, hence no mass, no people, no you.

Yep.

It's a silly line of inquiry altogether, and certainly an abysmal way to demonstrate the "logical" existence of a theistic god. . . which was my point.

I was aiming for absurdity. . . taking Aquinas' lines of logical thought and riffing on its implications with a real world example. . . Made extra absurd because Thomas has NO IDEA about anything we're both talking about.

 

[idav]

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?

Perhaps there is a maximal thing that encompasses all that exists. It's a decent argument since humans are finding those limitations. It does go along the lines of what Spinoza says, they have some similar views, Spinoza makes the claim that everything with attributes comes from god.

See this article for what I'm taking about, it allows for variety while sticking to monism.
Spinoza's Theory of Attributes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Muffled]

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?

I believe the problem is ad infinitem. If there always has to be something greater, then can the greatest ever be reached or should it be?

 

[Muffled]

We can see that Aquina's conclusion is a non sequitur with a simple example.

Let's consider the toy universe consisting of all positive numbers strictly smaller than 1.

And let's introduce the following degree of perfection: x is more perfect than y, if x bigger than y (and therefore closer to 1). So, 9/10 is more perfect than 1/2, for example.

However, it is easy to see that there is no entity in that universe that is more perfect than all the others. No matter how close to 1 a number is, we can always find one that is closer. Ergo, there exists no number in that universe that represents the highest level of perfection.

Therefore, the conclusion that there must exist an entity that maximizes all degrees of perfection, once we observe that such degrees of perfection are defined and exist, is logically unwarranted.

Ciao

- viole

I believe that is good logic. As for the existence of perfection, there is nothiing to say that it isn't possible. So all the fraction s approaching 1 are not 1 however 1 still exits.

 

[Muffled]

We are the ones who define objects as lesser and greater (hierarchy), they are a subjective projection, not objective realities. The whole basis of the argument is quite non-existent. Sometimes logic isn't so logical.

I believe something like heat is objectively measured. Higher heat leads to different metals melting.