OK I'm not getting any value out of talking to you so I quit.

It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum. — Devans99

Do you know, I've never actually read Thomas Aquinas, and I don't know a great deal about him or his arguments, but if you are anything to go by, then he must have been one of the worst philosophers of all time.

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Certainly you should not dismiss him without at least spending some time on the 5 ways.

OK I'm not getting any value out of talking to you so I quit. — Devans99

Of course. May I predict that you will start a new thread, proposing the same logic, referring to your old posts as support for your new thread, ignoring everyone's counter-arguments once more.

If there's anything that's circular it's the repeating cycle of your threads.

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. — Devans99

For theists perhaps, but he is not. If you think he is, you know nothing of philosophy history.

He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. — Devans99

He is placed way down the list, except by believers, for obvious reasons. He doesn't even come close to all the other big names.

"The Summa Theologiae (written 1265–1274 and also known as the Summa Theologica or simply the Summa) is the best-known work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274). Although unfinished, the Summa is "one of the classics of the history of philosophy and one of the most influential works of Western literature."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

One really valuable lesson to learn in the history of philosophy is that influential isn't necessarily a good thing.

As I mentioned above, the most obvious, best arguments come up first. So you have to look back in history for these arguments.

Christoffer
475

If anything, I am an agnostic. — Frank Apisa


Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa


THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT — Christoffer

Really.

Okay...a moment of agreement with us.

I agree that your comment is not a valid argument.

In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn't valid to support what is being proposed.

As I mentioned above, the most obvious, best arguments come up first. So you have to look back in history for these arguments. — Devans99

Ah, okay. So everything is water.

Ah, okay. So everything is water. — S

I'm drowning.

S
9.6k

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99


But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic.

Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles the logic of a little child, is actually pretty much your actual argument. — S

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off.

But here, I agree totally.

I, also, am not assuming the universe is a creation...let alone by magic.

I do not know if the universe is a creation or not...and if it is a creation (one possibility), I certainly do not know the mechanisms of the creation.

Devans is pretending he knows...or can calculate...that it was (or most likely was) a creation...

...and he pretty much can limit how the creation came to happen.

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum. — Devans99

Thomas Aquinas never showed it...

...and neither have you.

I calculate a 94.6% chance that you are wrong in all your calculations.

Ah, okay. So everything is water. — S

Obviously have to be selective about it. Some obvious arguments like 4 elements turned out wrong. In the case of the 5 ways, he is mainly using cause and effect for an axiom so the reasoning is as sound today as it was then (for the macroscopic world which is what matters).

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Certainly you should not dismiss him without at least spending some time on the 5 ways. — Devans99

The 5 ways...the 5 "proofs"...

...are a joke.

I agree the 4th is not valid. What are your objections to the others?

Christoffer
477
↪Frank Apisa


In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn't valid to support what is being proposed. — Christoffer

The question asked of me...which was the reason for my response, was:

Gentlemen (he asked me an others), please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?

My response was valid...and responsive.

Obviously have to be selective about it. — Devans99

So, what is convenient for you and your personal beliefs is how you are selective about it?

Devans99
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree the 4th is not valid. What are your objections to the others?
a minute ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God."

I, for one, refer to it as "we do not know."

Aquinas was an intelligent man for his day and respect him...

...but his argument can easily be defeated by a Philosophy 101 student.

I deduce my beliefs from my axioms. Causality is one of my axioms. That leads to a first cause. That agrees with Aquinas's arguments.

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God." — Frank Apisa

Apart from that bit which I agree is a stretch, what do you disagree with?

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause?

Devans99
1.5k

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God." — Frank Apisa


Apart from that bit which I agree is a stretch, what do you disagree with?

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause? — Devans99

C'mon, Devans.

Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off. — Frank Apisa

It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jerk-off thing to say, but it is true that you could improve your writing if you set aside your pride and took on board my criticism, as well as that of Christoffer.

I deduce my beliefs from my axioms. Causality is one of my axioms. That leads to a first cause. That agrees with Aquinas's arguments. — Devans99

That still doesn't support your original argument, the numbers and probability you calculate.
The first cause argument also doesn't prove anything other than a first cause. You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was. It's the most overused argument in theistic philosophy and it's grade-school level in explaining anything. You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is. If the conclusion is "something started causality", it is true, but that's it, therefore, it's in support of nothing, especially any theistic claims.

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause? — Devans99

You don't have to reject it to conclude that it proves nothing more than simply itself. Any other attributes or definitions of that first cause is invented by the believer using the argument.

Obviously have to be selective about it. — Devans99

Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God.

You need belief outside of the conclusion in order to attach what that first cause was — Christoffer

We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too.

You might want to study philosophy from Aquinas and forward to really get the depth of how simplistic his argument really is — Christoffer

The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument).

S
9.6k

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off. — Frank Apisa


It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jerk-off thing to say, but it is true that you could improve your writing if you set aside your pride and took on board my criticism, as well as that of Christoffer. — S

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing.

Ah, okay. Confirmation bias, you mean? It's not a bad argument when it's about God. — S

No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.

I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God.