"Any amateur atheist would easily debunk it"

[JDaniel]

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

Ooooh! Belorg. I know you are but what am I?

All you have to do is get someone more versed in St. Thomas to show me up. That should be easy for you, considering the group you partner with.

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

Well, since I taught a little of him to high school students, and was paid for it, at a point in my life, I don’t think they’ll allow me to shake the title. I’m in America, not Europe - different laws and customs and all that.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Ooooh! Belorg. I know you are but what am I?

You do not know what you are? I can’t help you with this.

All you have to do is get someone more versed in St. Thomas to show me up. That should be easy for you, considering the group you partner with.

I do not need someone more versed in Thomas, I am quite capable of debunking your arguments, as I have shown on several occasions.
But maybe I would have more troubles with someone more versed in Thomas.
FYI I have had discussions with several who seemed much more versed in Thomas than you, and they weren’t able to refure my claims.
But , as I said, maybe some day someone will.

Well, since I taught a little of him to high school students, and was paid for it, at a point in my life, I don’t think they’ll allow me to shake the title. I’m in America, not Europe - different laws and customs and all that.

God bless,
jd

I have also taught a little of him, to high school students, and was pid for it,so, maybe we are both professionals then.
Anyway, the fact that somebody like you, with all this knwoledge of Thomism, is unable to refute my argument, is telling.

 

[Linux]

I am no professional, but I have been thinking about these so-called proofs since they were first ‘explained’ to me at the age of 15 in 1970. At first I thought I did not understand them because I did not know enough, and that I found them unconvincing only because of my ignorance. Now I realise that they are unconvincing because they fail to convince - and they do so so universally that I have, despite searching, failed to find anyone who has been convinced by them.

I’m convinced by them and so are many intelligent people. I think you’re exaggerating for effect. The way in which you expressed your misgivings said it all. In the end I tend to find that understanding something properly is relative to your intentions. In my experience I have realised that people who have tried to debunk the first mover or contingency argument fundamentally lack an understanding of the underlying metaphysics that supports it, as-well as having a faulty understanding of epistemology and even the natural sciences which atheism supposedly champions. I have always found that Arguments which supposedly refute Aquinas are all in some way attacking a straw-man instead of the real thing.

In most cases some of the best of pro atheist debaters commit some kind of epistemological fallacy revealing that they really don’t care to understand the arguments at all, but are more interested in preserving and promoting their atheism. If they were interested, then they would know that a debate about the five ways really boils down to a debate about the veracity of “metaphysics” in terms of inference. When atheists can’t find flaws in metaphysics they feel pushed into a corner, and all kinds of strange ideas start popping out even to the extent of being sceptical about the veracity of logic itself. There is no winning debates against people with vested interests and little respect for reason. Reason is just an ad-hoc excuse which they support until it no-longer serves their purpose…

My experience suggests that some atheists have an emotional investment in their atheism just as much as Christians have in their God. There is a lot of hidden hypocrisy.

 

[Linux]

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.

This post is a perfect representation of somebody who thinks they understand the arguments but really don’t.

 

[Linux]

Im not fond of mechanistic arguments such as those with a creator at some point in the past. Aquin’as arguments dont even have to suppose a beginning of the universe for them to work, I personnaly find that stronger than these contemporary design arguments.

Your on the right path.

 

[Linux]

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.

C2 seems to be a strawman to me. You are taking it out context.

“But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone calls God.”

He does not say this is God.

The efficient Cause/prime-mover argument sets out only to prove that there must be a first cause. You don’t stop their and neither do you stop with the five ways. You have to read the whole summa theologica, or at least the sections dealing with Gods existence and nature.

 

[ColdComfort]

Cold:

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

God bless,
jd

Not sure what this means.

 

[belorg]

C2 seems to be a strawman to me. You are taking it out context.

“But the absence of such causes clearly does not square with our observation, and so there must therefore be a first efficient cause, which everyone calls God.”

He does not say this is God.

The efficient Cause/prime-mover argument sets out only to prove that there must be a first cause. You don’t stop their and neither do you stop with the five ways. You have to read the whole summa theologica, or at least the sections dealing with Gods existence and nature.

I agree that we should not stop there and also take the rest of the ST (and other works by Thomas) into considerations, but the “which everyone calls God” part is false. Not everyone calls this first efficient cause “God”. Aristotle, e.g. did not

 

[Qoeleth]

I ran across this statement in another thread on this forum. The “it” is Aquinas’ Five Ways, as best I can determine.

So is this statement true, or is it bluster? Please elaborate.

BTW, as I ask various questions in this forum, please don’t think, as some responders have, that my own faith is weak or wavering. I pursue these questions because I find them enlightening, and hope others will also.

The best way to consider Aquinas’ ‘Five Ways’ is as subjects of mystical meditation- to imagine some kind of supra-ontic ‘Causeless Cause’. Like the ‘Gateless Gate’ of Zen. Or some ‘transcendental goodness’, which transcends even goodness. To read pages and pages of Aquinas, and go into a state of mental blankness, somewhere between boredom to profound for words and rapture.

As for real proofs, no proof of anything is ever possible. Because the proof is either: 1) the same as the thing asserted, in which case it is purely circular; or 2) different from the thing asserted, in which case it is logically irrelevant. For these reasons, philosophy can only ever be assessed aesthetically.

So, you either ‘like’ (aesthetically) Aquinas, or not. But he does not prove anything. And, of course, I cannot prove this.

 

[empther]

The best way to consider Aquinas’ ‘Five Ways’ is as subjects of mystical meditation- to imagine some kind of supra-ontic ‘Causeless Cause’. Like the ‘Gateless Gate’ of Zen. Or some ‘transcendental goodness’, which transcends even goodness. To read pages and pages of Aquinas, and go into a state of mental blankness, somewhere between boredom to profound for words and rapture.

As for real proofs, no proof of anything is ever possible. Because the proof is either: 1) the same as the thing asserted, in which case it is purely circular; or 2) different from the thing asserted, in which case it is logically irrelevant. For these reasons, philosophy can only ever be assessed aesthetically.

So, you either ‘like’ (aesthetically) Aquinas, or not. But he does not prove anything. And, of course, I cannot prove this.

Now that’s real philosophizing !
It’s doesn’t say anything useful. It’s just a long string of words.

The universe itself is the evidence for God.
The universe could not have existed for an infinite past. It had to start. It couldn’t start itself. Therefore, we have to conclude there is a God.

 

[JDaniel]

You do not know what you are? I can’t help you with this.

Belorg:

I know who I am, and, what’s more, I know who you are!

I do not need someone more versed in Thomas, I am quite capable of debunking your arguments, as I have shown on several occasions.

Point them out. That should be easy for you.

But maybe I would have more troubles with someone more versed in Thomas.

No question.

FYI I have had discussions with several who seemed much more versed in Thomas than you, and they weren’t able to refure my claims.

“Seemed?”

But , as I said, maybe some day someone will.

Or, “seem” to? It’s been 700 years. Maybe we just have to wait another 700 years. But, you and I won’t be around to know. Your so-called claims were - and still are - incoherent. They were either honest, or dishonest, attempts to do harm to your opponents. As I recall, all of your so-called claims were straw men or red herrings, or both, and the definitions of words didn’t matter to you much. (And every interested onlooker knew it. There was not a single person in your corner, as I recall!) It should be easy to debunk straw men and red herrings. If a person can’t do that then, there’s no sense in them even trying to think.

Anyway, the fact that somebody like you, with all this knwoledge of Thomism, is unable to refute my argument, is telling.

As I said, and pointed out in our earlier discussions with intense effort to get you to see what everyone else had no problem seeing - in fact, newcomer after newcomer to those threads were fully aware of the definitions - you were the only person on the forum who was oblique to them.

But then, I figured out why. You are: “Belorg, Sorcerer level 12, Venore Obsidia Tibia” Currently, you spell your name with a small “b”, so maybe your not a big-shot, but just a minor player. But, you appear to want to be “Belorg,” with a capital “B.” Or, maybe you are that Belorg, Sorcerer level 12? I don’t know as you’re hidden behind the anonymity of the internet. No matter what, you’re duck soup from my perspective.

It also dawned on me that you would more than likely wish that I would say something that would get me thrown off CAF. So, you decided that since you could not refute me, precisely because you were forced into having to play the game with all your strength, you would up the stakes and attempt to exasperate me. But that didn’t work either. As I recall, numerous other posters attempted to help you understand, but you just reiterated the same senseless words over and over to everyone. Then, pretended that you didn’t hear them so that you could continue to repeat them. That’s what you call refutation? Rather, it is game-playing - and that’s OK, for as long as you can get away with it.

I see that we’re ramping this up again. So be it. Let the games proceed!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Not sure what this means.

CC:

It means, all finite things are caused, even if the cause is not easily discernible. (There is only one un-caused cause.)

God bless,
jd

 

[Linux]

but the “which everyone calls God” part is false. Not everyone calls this first efficient cause “God”. Aristotle, e.g. did not

Again, you are taking this out of context. The summa theologica was written for Christians, within a Christian context. God by definition is ultimate reality, is the first cause, among other things. Aquinas is not saying that everybody in existence called the first cause God obviously.

I think it would be fair to give Aquinas the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t so stupid as to make such an obvious mistake.

 

[MJDorry]

“Any amateur atheist would easily debunk it”

An “amateur atheist” as opposed to a professional one?

Since when did atheist become a job description? (Well, I know that Percy Shelley used to list his profession in hotel registers as atheist, but I think he was trying to make a point.)

Hah! I was just thinking, “When did atheism become a competitive sport?” On second thought…

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I know who I am, and, what’s more, I know who you are!

Point them out. That should be easy for you.

No question.

“Seemed?”

Or, “seem” to? It’s been 700 years. Maybe we just have to wait another 700 years. But, you and I won’t be around to know. Your so-called claims were - and still are - incoherent. They were either honest, or dishonest, attempts to do harm to your opponents. As I recall, all of your so-called claims were straw men or red herrings, or both, and the definitions of words didn’t matter to you much. (And every interested onlooker knew it. There was not a single person in your corner, as I recall!) It should be easy to debunk straw men and red herrings. If a person can’t do that then, there’s no sense in them even trying to think.

As I said, and pointed out in our earlier discussions with intense effort to get you to see what everyone else had no problem seeing - in fact, newcomer after newcomer to those threads were fully aware of the definitions - you were the only person on the forum who was oblique to them.

But then, I figured out why. You are: “Belorg, Sorcerer level 12, Venore Obsidia Tibia” Currently, you spell your name with a small “b”, so maybe your not a big-shot, but just a minor player. But, you appear to want to be “Belorg,” with a capital “B.” Or, maybe you are that Belorg, Sorcerer level 12? I don’t know as you’re hidden behind the anonymity of the internet. No matter what, you’re duck soup from my perspective.

It also dawned on me that you would more than likely wish that I would say something that would get me thrown off CAF. So, you decided that since you could not refute me, precisely because you were forced into having to play the game with all your strength, you would up the stakes and attempt to exasperate me. But that didn’t work either. As I recall, numerous other posters attempted to help you understand, but you just reiterated the same senseless words over and over to everyone. Then, pretended that you didn’t hear them so that you could continue to repeat them. That’s what you call refutation? Rather, it is game-playing - and that’s OK, for as long as you can get away with it.

I see that we’re ramping this up again. So be it. Let the games proceed!

God bless,
jd

Yes, that’s the JDaniel I recall… The one who was unable to refute my argument, then first started to call them red herrings and strawmen and then finally got so frustrated at his own inability to refute my argument that he started throwing insults at me.
The one who takes the fact that most newcombers here were either not able to understand the rather complex matter of my argument (that was probably your problem too), or just were not wiling to take an athiest’s argument (another of your problems) as some kind of proof why that my argument was invalid.

FYI, I have no clue as to who Belorg (with a capital B) might be, so this is not a gma for me.
Anyway, I am prefectly willing to discuss my refutations of Aquinas provide your show a more mature attitude.

 

[belorg]

Again, you are taking this out of context. The summa theologica was written for Christians, within a Christian context. God by definition is ultimate reality, is the first cause, among other things. Aquinas is not saying that everybody in existence called the first cause God obviously.

I think it would be fair to give Aquinas the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t so stupid as to make such an obvious mistake.

Of course every Christian would call this ‘God’
The point is that this does not mean we just have to take it for granted that Aquinas’ first way in any way proved God’s existence.

 

[empther]

The point is that this does not mean we just have to take it for granted that Aquinas’ first way in any way proved God’s existence.

Until somebody can explain how the universe could have existed through an infinite past,
or how the universe could have started itself,

I’ll take Aquinas’s proof of God as proof.

 

[J_Peterson]

Until somebody can explain how the universe could have existed through an infinite past,
or how the universe could have started itself,

I’ll take Aquinas’s proof of God as proof.

Aquinas never said that the universe couldn’t have an infinite past. In fact he said that it could have had an infinite past while still being caused by God. His example (which may have been Augustine or Plato, I forget) is that of an boot eternally planted in the sand. The boot causes the impression in the sand but there was never a time the impression wasn’t there.

For instance, our universe could just be part of an infninte chain of cause and effect with no beginning. It’s not about God causing something to begin at a certain time but more about God causing the existance of the here and now. Creation wasn’t a moment in time, it is ongoing and eternal.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

My only question is what is an “amateur” atheist?

Am I an amateur, or do I have the experience and skills necessary to make me a professional? Or maybe a novice or apprentice if I’m somewhere in the middle but learning? Or maybe its like an RPG where you gradually level up. If that’s the case I have probably only taken a few levels in atheist before taking my second class in cook, and by now I have to be close to epic-level cook.

 

[Linux]

My only question is what is an “amateur” atheist?

Am I an amateur, or do I have the experience and skills necessary to make me a professional? Or maybe a novice or apprentice if I’m somewhere in the middle but learning? Or maybe its like an RPG where you gradually level up. If that’s the case I have probably only taken a few levels in atheist before taking my second class in cook, and by now I have to be close to epic-level cook.

The word Amateur properly understood is the difference between academic recognition and somebody that is “self taught”.

You could be the greatest philosopher in the world, but if you haven’t Got the academic accolades to go with it then you are an amateur. If I am not mistaken, Einstein began as an amateur equipped with only a moderate understanding of mathematics and was working in a patent office.

If expressed within its proper context the word “amateur” does not have the negative connotation that people have given to it, since it really has nothing to do with your intelligence or your capacity to know anything, but rather it has everything to do with proven academic status.

Amateur atheist is simply the idea that some atheists who debate do not have the proven academic status to give authority to what they say. For example Richard Dawkins is considered a professional Atheist debater. But really he is just a professional scientist and is very poor when it comes to defending the atheist belief system. So I really don’t know what a professional atheist is. Its largely an invented peusdo concept.