Ok, for clarity I am using the term connotations to mean something like “additional meanings”. And of course the term God has huge piles of connotations.
Candide:
I know what “connotations” means, and you are using it incorrectly. We are defining “God” precisely, or at least as precisely as humanly possible.
Even if we just look at the catholic use of the term (obviously a tiny subset) then implied meanings include - omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, personal and creator - and that’s just for a starter. All of those are in addition to the Prime Mover which is demonstrated by the first way. So yes, clearly the term “God” DOES have huge piles of additional connotations.
These are not “connotations.” They are understood as
determinants from a precise encyclopedic definition of all that “God” is, just as a “horse” is much more that just an “animal.” More appropriately, they
denote God. “House,” for example, is fairly strictly defined. But, “home” is not without its connotations - that normally have little or nothing to do with what it means to be a “house,” such as, the living room, the roof, the garage, the bedrooms, the kitchen, etc., etc. If someone wanted to sell you a “house” you would properly ask what it consisted of? You would also probably ask of what material is it constructed? Yet, we know what a “house”
is. The initial room of God-as-house, we understand as Omnipotence. The second room, as Omniscience. Etc., etc. None of these is a
per se connotation. They are precise determinants, a.k.a, attributes. The house has these as well. The living room is xx ft. by xx ft. The garage is a 2 and a half car garage. etc.
Yes, it’s a two word contraction which adequately represents what the first way demonstrates. Hence a sensible term to use. I’ve already explained why I don’t want to just rename the PM as “God” - because of all the additional connotations that word carries.
Do you
really think that “Prime Mover” does not implicitly mean “God?”
Really?
As I said above, it is incomplete as a definition. “Prime Mover” is but a part of the full, or, complete definition, unless, of course, if one closely explores what “Prime Mover” means! No one in their right mind would define “horse” as merely an “animal.” Nor even a “four legged animal.” And no one in their right mind would define “God” as consisting of a singular determinant. The Catholic Church, since it was the first church, had the innate task of defining that in which it believed, “God.” And it did. But, as you know, the original definition does not necessarily satisfy the nit-picky amongst us.
Soon, some people were asking, “What is this?” and “What is that?” So, the Church Fathers going back to the basics - the books of the Bible - found the answers. In those books were found all of the requisite pointers to everything we understand about God, leaving a few things as mystery. In any event, the Catholic understands “God” by His full definition, unless they are nit-picky too. In fact, most other Christian religionists appear to as well.
Ok, so atheists and theists alike can agree that the first way shows the existence of a PM.
I think so. Provided they actually use their heads for more than a hair and skin farm.
In other words we can all agree “something happened first”.
No. That “first happening” would be, in our cosmology, the Big Bang. But, as we are very sure, it only occurred a finite
time ago. It was (and still is) dependent upon a sustaining “mover” Being (including,
per definitionem, every single one of His known attributes), that We Christians call
God; but, you’d prefer to define a “horse” as nothing but “animal.” Don’t you see this?
Because the appellation is inappropriate. I could equally well replace the last word in Aquinas’s proof with “Fairies” and claim that I have proven fairies exist.
Yes you could! (Did you expect that?) It would be rather irreverent, as far as we’re concerned, and since that word has its own meaning, but certainly any appellation could have been chosen. By way of proof: take a look at all of the names that humans used for Him in the Old Testament. Then, look at all the terms used for Him nowadays. Everyone (except you, I guess) understands what and who is meant by the name,
God. It is irrelevant whether or not a person knows, or understands all of the
determinants. You are being argumentative.
You seem to be trying bend the term to reach your objective of “God” obviously though the further you go from “something happened first” the less accurate your terminology becomes.
It is well known that when someone cries “thief” too often, it is usually because they
are a thief.
There is no need for an infinitive there. It’s perfectly acceptable to say (for example) “something happened”.
Except that it is devoid of any practical meaning. It is not only not useful, but also, it tells us nothing. One might just as easily have said, in the absence of any context at all, “something is.” Besides, in the absence of a
to infinitive, there is presumed to be an object (or, objects). As you state it, it has the look of an amateurish attempt at depth, with a tint of mystery - something that we often hear from some Buddhists.
continued . . .
Post # 6.
What do you think logical validity is?