"Any amateur atheist would easily debunk it"

[ThinkingSapien]

Where’s Perplexity and the other atheists when we need them?

Long gone. Perplexity hasn’t been here since mid October.

 

[Doxus]

Aquinas’ first three proofs can essentially be boiled down into one. I can hear the apologists going “RAAAAR NOOOO THEY ARE DIFFERENT RAAAR”. Not really. The difference between the first three proofs comes down to splitting of formal logical hairs. The same counter-arguments work on all three, and I don’t want to waste time nitpicking each one individually.

The essence of the arguments can be stated thus:

P1. Some things move/are caused/are contingent
P2. There cannot be an infinite regressioon
C1. So there must be a first mover/causation/non-contingent thing
C2. This is God

The problem, of course, is that C2 is a non sequitor. I’m not using the word in a dismissive way; this is a literal, formal non sequitor. It does not follow from the premises provided that the first mover, causer, or non-contingent thing must be a personal, omnipotent, timeless, spaceless, transcendental being with thoughts and a plan. Let alone that this being exists in three parts and sent one of its parts down to be sacrificed to itself to absolve humanity of a sin that it tempted humanity into.

William Lane Craig alters C2 to remove the formal fallacy, but more clearly demonstrates the dishonesty at work. He changes C2 to “This we call God.” I think that speaks volumes. God, in the mind of believers, has a specific semantic meaning and defined attributes. Aquinas’ proofs do not demonstrate those attributes, so saying that the conclusion of the argument must be a God with those attributes is a logical fallacy.

If you do not pre-suppose the existence of a personal god, then “This we call God” can just as easily be logically replaced with “This we call the Big Bang” or “This we call Dog.” For this reason, Aquinas’ first three proofs and the related Cosmological arguments utterly fail to convince most atheists, because they contain a fallacy that will only go unnoticed if you already believe.

An example of another atheist refuting Aquinas’ arguments (WARNING: BAD LANGUAGE)
youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

 

[empther]

I’ve said this many times in arguments with Perplexity,
but I guess people forget. One more time.

At the beginning of ST, Aquinas in the five proofs shows by the impossibility of an infinite regression that there had to be a first cause, or first mover. At this time he does not equate the first cause or first mover as the God known to Chrestians.

Later in the ST, he deduces from the five proofs’s conclusion the particular characteristics that the prime mover or cause must have: infinity, omniscience, and all the rest.

To say that the five proofs don’t prove the Christian God is either a lack of understanding, or not honest.

 

[Doxus]

I’ve said this many times in arguments with Perplexity,
but I guess people forget. One more time.

At the beginning of ST, Aquinas in the five proofs shows by the impossibility of an infinite regression that there had to be a first cause, or first mover. At this time he does not equate the first cause or first mover as the God known to Chrestians.

Later in the ST, he deduces from the five proofs’s conclusion the particular characteristics that the prime mover or cause must have: infinity, omniscience, and all the rest.

To say that the five proofs don’t prove the Christian God is either a lack of understanding, or not honest.

Then it is the fault of Christians for not adequately presenting their own arguments. Here’s what I see happening: Christian wants to provide a logical argument for god with the least possible effort, they look up “Thomas Aquinas”, copy his five proofs off Wikipedia, and present them without context, which fail.

If you think the additional proofs about infinite regression and the necessity that this first mover be the god of the Bible will convince atheists, then present those arguments. You want to convince us, no? Then put some effort into it instead of just name-dropping and copy/pasting! (Not directed specifically at you, by the way, just an in general sort of comment)

 

[Faithdancer]

What often seems to be lost in these arguments is that not only is God the first cause, but the continuing cause. He is ultimately simple, elegantly so, and undivided. Do the atheists want continuous causation forever? No problem. This we call God, eternal, changeless and continuous.

 

[JDaniel]

Here’s what St Thomas said:

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause—which all call God.
To accept this you must accept that there are things, independent of all but their own cause, that there are causes, which create things, and that it is somehow impossible for everything to ultimately result from a thing which always existed, unless that thing is God. Why can’t there simply be interacting things forever, and periodically bringing forth other things? To test the strength of this argument - take it out to some people who do not believe in God and explain it to them. See if it is, in fact, convincing. In my experience it convinces people who already believe in God, not those who do not. It is therefore, empirically, a non-proof, since proofs must prove to be proofs. Now I’m upset. My brain is full of philosophy. I will watch the synchronized swimming at the Olympics for a while to defragment it.

The above is a perfect example of the brute fact that atheists do not understand the proofs!

God bless,
jd

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
I’ve said this many times in arguments with Perplexity,
but I guess people forget. One more time.

At the beginning of ST, Aquinas in the five proofs shows by the impossibility of an infinite regression that there had to be a first cause, or first mover. At this time he does not equate the first cause or first mover as the God known to Chrestians.

Later in the ST, he deduces from the five proofs’s conclusion the particular characteristics that the prime mover or cause must have: infinity, omniscience, and all the rest.

To say that the five proofs don’t prove the Christian God is either a lack of understanding, or not honest.

Doxus replied:
Then it is the fault of Christians for not adequately presenting their own arguments. Here’s what I see happening: Christian wants to provide a logical argument for god with the least possible effort, they look up “Thomas Aquinas”, copy his five proofs off Wikipedia, and present them without context, which fail.

I explained why Aquinas; five proofs are just the begining of his proof of God as he is known to Christians and that subsequently he will deduce many more things about God.

Doxus replies that Christians should explain the ST here.

To show how ridiculous this is,
I will list the “articles” at the beginning of Summa Theologica. An “article” is about a single specific topic. Articles are organized into “questions” not listed here.

Is it necessary?
Is it a science?
Is it one or many?
Is it speculative or practical?
How it is compared with other sciences?
Is it the same as wisdom?
Is God its subject-matter?
Is it a matter of argument?
Does it rightly employ metaphors and similes?
May the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine be expounded in different senses?
Is the proposition “God exists” self-evident?
Is it demonstrable?
Does God exist? The “five proofs” here.
Is God a body?
Is He composed of matter and form?
Is there composition of quiddity, essence or nature, and subject in Him?
Is He composed of essence and existence?
Is He composed of genus and difference?
Is He composed of subject and accident?
Is He in any way composite, or wholly simple?
Does He enter into composition with other things?
Is God perfect?
Is God perfect universally, as having in Himself the perfections of all things?
Can creatures be said to be like God?
Are goodness and being the same really?
Granted that they differ only in idea, which is prior in thought?
Granted that being is prior, is every being good?
To what cause should goodness be reduced?
Does goodness consist in mode, species, and order?
Is goodness divided into the virtuous, the useful, and the pleasant?
Does goodness belong to God?
Is God the supreme good?
Is He alone essentially good?
Are all things good by the divine goodness?
Is God infinite?
Is anything besides Him infinite in essence?
Can anything be infinite in magnitude?
Can an infinite multitude exist?
Is God in all things?
Is God everywhere?
Is God everywhere by essence, power, and presence?
Does it belong to God alone to be everywhere?
Is God altogether immutable?
Does it belong to God alone to be immutable?
What is eternity?
Is God eternal?
Does it belong to God alone to be eternal?
Does eternity differ from time?
What is the difference of aeviternity, as there is one time, and one eternity?
Is there only one aeviternity?
Does “one” add anything to “being”?
Are “one” and “many” opposed to each other?
Is God one?
Is He in the highest degree one?
Can any created intellect see the essence of God?
Is the essence of God seen by the intellect through any created image?
Can the essence of God be seen by the corporeal eye?
Is any created intellectual substance sufficient by its own natural powers to see the essence of God?
Does the created intellect need any created light in order to see the essence of God?
Of those who see God, does one see Him more perfectly than another?
Can any created intellect comprehend the essence of God?
Does the created intellect seeing the essence of God, know all things in it?
Is what is known there known by any similitudes?
Does the created intellect know at once what it sees in God?
In the state of this life can any man see the essence of God?
Can we know God by natural reason in this life?
Is there in this life any knowledge of God through grace above the knowledge of natural reason?

Aquinas is just getting started. I had to delete most of the list because it exceeded the 6,000 character limit here.
Notice that the “five proofs” is in the article **“Does God exist” **early in the list. Aquinas is just getting started.

And Doxus wants us to explain Aquinas’s proof of the Christian God here on this forum?
That’s like describing an encyclopedia on a Post-It.

Amazing ignorance, Doxus!

Read the Summa itself in print.

 

[JDaniel]

Il give it a try.

In Aristotle’s view final causality can exist even in the absence of consciousness and this seems to conflict with the fifth way.

Alex:

Here is St. Thomas’ fifth Way:
“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.” - My boldings.

What to make of this?

Let me begin by saying that what we have here are two different, albeit related, exigencies. (1) We have the Fifth Way of St. Thomas, as cited above, and (2) we have the fourth cause (of the coming to be of things).

For Aristotle, a non-theist, causes are: principles from which all things flow. Just as St. Thomas points out, “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way,” He is thus in agreement with Aristotle - to some extent. The differences between them are, Aristotle places the impetus for not-conscious things coming to be on nature, whereas Aquinas places the impetus on a conscious Creator.

Aristotle, in his philosophical quest for truth was coming very close to ascribing a “God-like” agent, as Aristotle did include agency, the efficient cause, as a required part of extrinsic causality. (The other two causes are: matter and form, which are both intrinsic). What he did not know, at his time, was that an agent could actually exist, and so did not carry his logic all the way to conclusion. Now, some say he did carry his logic out, and did, in fact, arrive at a necessary agent. But, that is not relevant to your question.

What is relevant is that Aquinas was aware of the necessity of agency, and induced (after extensive dialectic) that such an agent would have to be beyond anything that we, as men, have laid eyes on. He reasoned that, “We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way…” Thus, “a final cause is that for the sake of which an agent acts.” Now, it was also obvious that natural things did not themselves deliberate. So, there was no way that natural things, by themselves, could, or would, act as is required of things “always acting, or nearly always acting, in the same way.” Therefore, there has to be an agent - not necessarily of this earth, but definitely not merely equal to any man or other creature - that could and did deliberate.

If that was too confusing, please ask questions.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

But then, it could easily be said that Aquinas’s ‘proofs’ or ‘arguments’ or whatever they are most properly called, are indeed based upon the premise that God exists - they can be taken as rationalisations of belief in that premise.

As you can see, even after a myriad of posts, our own atheists don’t understand the arguments! It is absolutely clear, from reading his proof and reading his reasonings to final causality, that Aquinas did NOT presuppose God. He clearly reasoned to a “greater artist,” “greater-than-a-man (or group of men)-agent,” or a “beyond-state-of-the-art-thinker/agent,” as he merely says that, “we call him God’.” If you wish to rationalize that as “presupposition,” no one will try to take that right away from you. All I can say is that, on the contrary, it is your contention that presupposes!

As Hokomai pointed out, they may strengthen the conviction of those who already believe, but their power to convince and convert is far more dubious.

No so. In my atheist days, I had no presuppositions to strengthen. And, even with a poor, but admittedly much better understanding of the arguments than most people have, came to the conclusion such a superior thing must exist. It took a little longer to acquiesce to calling it, “God.”

If, indeed, they demonstrate anything, it is merely an impersonal prime mover - there is still the leap to make from there to a theistic concept of god;

I disagree. I think it’s a tiny step, not a “leap.” We have to call it/him something, why not “God?” Then, from that point it was easy to see that he had, in fact, revealed himself to our historical relatives. Now, I could be a moron and deny they encountered him, or, I could be less of a moron and accept it just as I accept other history books.

even Antony Flew, often held up by believers as a “success story”, was only ever convinced that deism was the case, not theism.

So?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Besides Feser’s The Last Superstitution I would suggest you read his book on Aquinas. He points out that many people only read that part of the ST that contains the Five Ways. In the rest of the of the ST he spends a great deal of time arguing that the God he refers to is indeed the God of Christian belief. As pointed out already, the ST is meant to be an introduction to sacred science. The Five ways are sort of a summary and you have to read other parts of Aquinas to understand the full argument. For example, Aquinas does not see efficent causation in isolation from formal, material and final causes.

His arguments have often been misrepresented. In this thread someone wrote that Aquinas makes the assumption that everything has a cause. The exact assumption is that everything that moves has a cause.

Cold:

Actually, “everything” has a cause. There is nothing that exists that is at perfect rest - even a sleeping cat!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

It is true and it is bluster.
I am an amateur atheist and I can debunk Aquinas’ five ways to my own satisfaction and that of other atheists.
But most Thomists do not accept my debunking. So in that sense, it is bluster.

Belorg:

Come on! I can probably debunk neurosurgery, but, considering my lack of knowledge about it, it would be non-sense.

No argument for theism is completely bulletproof, and the same holds for arguments for atheism. If there was such a thing as a bulletproof argument for or against God, there would be no discussion anymore.

An often asserted, but, as yet unsubstantiated one.

I agree with other posters here that many people who try to debunk the Five Ways actually do not understand them.

I’m starting to change my opinion of you . . . for the better!

Unfortunately, the same is true for many who defend the Five ways. I see many theists here defending ideas that actually contradict Thomism while still maintaining that Aquinas was correct.

No doubt, but your presupposition here is that you are a qualified arbiter. We’ve been through that before.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Aquinas’ first three proofs can essentially be boiled down into one. I can hear the apologists going “RAAAAR NOOOO THEY ARE DIFFERENT RAAAR”. Not really. The difference between the first three proofs comes down to splitting of formal logical hairs. The same counter-arguments work on all three, and I don’t want to waste time nitpicking each one individually.

The essence of the arguments can be stated thus:

P1. Some things move/are caused/are contingent
P2. There cannot be an infinite regressioon
C1. So there must be a first mover/causation/non-contingent thing
C2. This is God

The problem, of course, is that C2 is a non sequitur. I’m not using the word in a dismissive way; this is a literal, formal non sequitur. It does not follow from the premises provided that the first mover, causer, or non-contingent thing must be a personal, omnipotent, timeless, spaceless, transcendental being with thoughts and a plan.

Doxus:

For the sake of moving the argument along, I will postulate that all three are closely related. However, your conclusion then requires that either non-deliberating things can bring themselves into being and provide their own reason for being, and that non-composite things can move themselves - both of which are dialectically known as impossible - or, that something considerably less than an omnipotent, timeless, and transcendental thing that can think, plan and will, causes everything. I believe that that is utterly irrational - but that’s just me.

Let alone that this being exists in three parts and sent one of its parts down to be sacrificed to itself to absolve humanity of a sin that it tempted humanity into.

Let’s not straw man or red herring the argument please.

William Lane Craig alters C2 to remove the formal fallacy, but more clearly demonstrates the dishonesty at work. He changes C2 to “This we call God.” I think that speaks volumes. God, in the mind of believers, has a specific semantic meaning and defined attributes. Aquinas’ proofs do not demonstrate those attributes, so saying that the conclusion of the argument must be a God with those attributes is a logical fallacy.

As formidable as WLC may be, even he has a smidgen of mis-understanding of Aquinas. And, I guess he’s still not Catholic?

If you do not pre-suppose the existence of a personal god, then “This we call God” can just as easily be logically replaced with “This we call the Big Bang” or “This we call Dog.”

Only in so far as we don’t confer their present referents in conflation with the meaning of God.

For this reason, Aquinas’ first three proofs and the related Cosmological arguments utterly fail to convince most atheists, because they contain a fallacy that will only go unnoticed if you already believe.

Well, since I was at one time an atheist, I truly have to disagree with that. Or, did I miss something in your above?

God bless, Doxus,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Come on! I can probably debunk neurosurgery, but, considering my lack of knowledge about it, it would be non-sense.

Most probably, but in that case somebody who has more knowledge would have no problem shwoing you were you are wrong.
I, on the other hand, have presented my arguments against the Five Ways to several self-porclaimed Thomists, and none of them have been able to refute them.
Of course, that does not mean my arguments cannot be refuted. But I am still waiting.

An often asserted, but, as yet unsubstantiated one.

You are welcome to present your bullet-proof argument for theism, JD.

I’m starting to change my opinion of you . . . for the better!

Some things are just obvious, JD.

No doubt, but your presupposition here is that you are a qualified arbiter. We’ve been through that before.

God bless,
jd

I do not need to be a qualified arbiter to recognize some glaring contradictions, JD.

 

[JDaniel]

Then it is the fault of Christians for not adequately presenting their own arguments.

Doxus:

No it’s not. Most Christians accede to God through “Faith,” others (a tiny percentage) through “Faith and Reason.” It therefore follows that most Christians either are unaware of the proofs, or, if they have some awareness of them, do not understand them - much like the atheists.

Here’s what I see happening: Christian wants to provide a logical argument for god with the least possible effort, they look up “Thomas Aquinas”, copy his five proofs off Wikipedia, and present them without context, which fail.

Wikipedia? Oh, they’re usually not at all biased! Good.

If you think the additional proofs about infinite regression and the necessity that this first mover be the god of the Bible will convince atheists, then present those arguments.

But, they have convinced atheists. Now, you can say that none of us converts were “true Scotsmen!”

You want to convince us, no? Then put some effort into it instead of just name-dropping and copy/pasting! (Not directed specifically at you, by the way, just an in general sort of comment)

Again, I disagree. I think, if we are in the business of trying to convince atheists, that it is imperative that we seek to truly understand the Five Ways. Every single so called refutation, that I have seen - and I’ve probably seen most - has been either a “straw man,” a “red herring,” of both.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Most probably, but in that case somebody who has more knowledge would have no problem shwoing you were you are wrong.

Belorg:

Maybe. I will not postulate this assumption. I’ll just say, “maybe.” Provide someone with more knowledge of St. Thomas to me and have him prove me wrong. That’s how I could be falsified.

I, on the other hand, have presented my arguments against the Five Ways to several self-porclaimed Thomists, and none of them have been able to refute them.

And, I could proclaim that I practice neurosurgery.

Of course, that does not mean my arguments cannot be refuted. But I am still waiting.

I am not going to derail this thread, or the intents of the person who restored it to the top of the list. I’m certain that I did prove your allegations wrong, but, you didn’t see it that way. So, we agreed to disagree.

You are welcome to present your bullet-proof argument for theism, JD.

I have, over, and over, and over.

Some things are just obvious, JD.

Yes they are. I think it’s obvious that you have a personal preference and predilection. And, I proved that in the past.

I do not need to be a qualified arbiter to recognize some glaring contradictions, JD.

Then I do not need to be a practicing neurosurgeon to refute the main rationales for that science.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Maybe. I will not postulate this assumption. I’ll just say, “maybe.” Provide someone with more knowledge of St. Thomas to me and have him prove me wrong. That’s how I could be falsified.

The problem is that people often do not want to admit when they are falsified.

And, I could proclaim that I practice neurosurgery.

You could proclaim that, but could you also present evidence for it?

I am not going to derail this thread, or the intents of the person who restored it to the top of the list. I’m certain that I did prove your allegations wrong, but, you didn’t see it that way. So, we agreed to disagree.

And that’s eaxctly what I was saying. You, as an amateur, are sure that you have proved me wrong, and I , as another amateur, am certain that you didn’t. So, your claim is true in one sense and is bluster in another sense.

I have, over, and over, and over.

For thise who belive you, this is true, for others it is bluster.

Yes they are. I think it’s obvious that you have a personal preference and predilection. And, I proved that in the past.

Everybody has a personal preference and predilection. Not so difficult to porve that.

Then I do not need to be a practicing neurosurgeon to refute the main rationales for that science.

God bless,
jd

If there were glaring contradictions in the main rationales for neurosurgery, then you would not need to be a practising neurosurgeon to refute them. A dash of common sense would suffice.

 

[JDaniel]

The problem is that people often do not want to admit when they are falsified.

Belorg:

I guess one could say that, “You would know!”

You could proclaim that, but could you also present evidence for it?

Nope. All I have to do is “proclaim it,” to meet the criteria you set.

And that’s eaxctly what I was saying. You, as an amateur, are sure that you have proved me wrong, and I , as another amateur, am certain that you didn’t. So, your claim is true in one sense and is bluster in another sense.

But, you see, I’m not an amateur. I’ve doing this for years, in and out of school.

For thise who belive you, this is true, for others it is bluster.

True.

Everybody has a personal preference and predilection. Not so difficult to porve that.

True.

If there were glaring contradictions in the main rationales for neurosurgery, then you would not need to be a practising neurosurgeon to refute them. A dash of common sense would suffice.

Big “if.” Now, how would I, as a non-practicing neurosurgeon, know if I was right or wrong? Just from my preferences and predilections?

God bless,
jd

 

[kingpomba]

Ways 1 and 2 are easily defended against. There is the illogical conclusion that the first cause or prime mover must be God, the only condition it needs to fulfill is being the first cause, it does not need to care about us, still exist, or be perfectly good. Indeed, the logical structure of the argument is still fulfilled by a perfectly evil first cause. I see no problem with multiple, equal first causes either.

I am not so sure about the 3rd way.

I think way 4 is based on our subjective human perceptions and ideas, if we didn’t exist, i don’t think this argument would either.

Way 5 can be shot down by inexplicable design choices or poor design choices. You could also merge it with the problem of evil and attempt to ask why God created viruses which are so exquisitely engineered for the sole purpose of death, disease and suffering.

Ultimately, i think the 2nd way is the best one. Not so much because it is exceedingly good but because its hard to totally break like the others can be. God certainly* could be* the first cause but it certainly could be something else. It’s a bit like a mirror, this one will reflect on you, if you are looking to prove your prior belief in God, this one seems all that much reasonable. If you are not, then you can easily object like i did.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I guess one could say that, “You would know!”

Yes, indeed, I do know from my discussions with you.

But, you see, I’m not an amateur. I’ve doing this for years, in and out of school.

Is Thomist philosophy your profession? If not, then you are an amateur. No matyter how well-informed you are.

 

[JDaniel]

Ways 1 and 2 are easily defended against. There is the illogical conclusion that the first cause or prime mover must be God, the only condition it needs to fulfill is being the first cause, it does not need to care about us, still exist, or be perfectly good. Indeed, the logical structure of the argument is still fulfilled by a perfectly evil first cause. I see no problem with multiple, equal first causes either.

King:

I’m sorry, but that’s completely absurd! How do I know this? Because I know that there is very little, in this world, that could be ascribed to “evil.” Almost everything that touches us is “good.” If it didn’t matter that the Creator was good or evil, then, at the least, 50% of what touches us would be clearly, demonstrably evil. Sounds like you’ve had one or two things in your life that you wouldn’t describe as “good.”

On top of that, there is no man, or group of white-coated scientists, that could have brought this universe into existence, or this world, or life. That this is true is easily induced from a not too-difficult-at-all dialectic. Any exigency that could bring all of this into being, by thought and will, is not a simple, non-deliberative, chancy, gathering up of billions of particles and forces. That is an infinitely absurd option.

I think way 4 is based on our subjective human perceptions and ideas, if we didn’t exist, i don’t think this argument would either.

Sorry, a red herring.

Way 5 can be shot down by inexplicable design choices or poor design choices.

With you, alone, as the judge, jury and executioner.

You could also merge it with the problem of evil and attempt to ask why God created viruses which are so exquisitely engineered for the sole purpose of death, disease and suffering.

Some are. But, I don’t see the big deal. Oooooh! Death, disease and suffering! I’ve lived them all - except death, which God concurred and allowed me to escape several times. I’m not worried by them and I’m not terrified of them. It appears that you have an inordinate fear of them. But, you’re entitled to that.

Ultimately, i think the 2nd way is the best one. Not so much because it is exceedingly good but because its hard to totally break like the others can be.

None of which have you even close to successfully done. Lots of hot air, and naked assertion.

God certainly* could be* the first cause but it certainly could be something else.

Such as?

It’s a bit like a mirror, this one will reflect on you, if you are looking to prove your prior belief in God, this one seems all that much reasonable. If you are not, then you can easily object like i did.

Interesting. I have those same objections against neurosurgery.

God bless,
jd