Dawkins' argument against the first 3 Proofs by St. Thomas Aqunias

[Ben_Sinner]

I came across this and I wonder if Catholics find any logic to this argument Dawkins’ proposes:

from Wikipedia:

**Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.**

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

 

[Bahman]

I came across this and I wonder if Catholics find any logic to this argument Dawkins’ proposes:

from Wikipedia:

**Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments** that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

Yes. All ontological arguments are false. Please read this and this.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes. All ontological arguments are false. Please read this and this.

The OP is NOT talking about ontological arguments and, no, cosmological arguments are not all false.

What Hume, Kant and Dawkins have to say on the matter are not definitive, no matter what some claim. Dawkins, in particular, has been soundly critiqued even by atheist philosophers for providing what amounts to a caracature of the arguments.

Anyone who thinks Aquinas’ Five Ways have been falsified by Dawkins thereby proves s/he doesn’t know what they are talking about.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I came across this and I wonder if Catholics find any logic to this argument Dawkins’ proposes:

from Wikipedia:

**Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments** that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

By the way, Aquinas shows that avoiding an infinite regress is precisely what the cosmological argument does and doesn’t “rely” on it merely shows that the principle of sufficient reason upon which all of science and logic depend is jeopardized by not accepting the cosmological argument. That isn’t a case of special pleading, it is a case of warranted pleading. Otherwise we have no reason to think anything is true, reasonable or meaningful in any consistent sense at all.

Try Ed Feser’s blog for a more balanced view of what is at issue.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=Cosmological+argument

Anyone interested in considering what the cosmological argument is really all about should read those posts.

I doubt the editors of the Wikipedia article have read or, more importantly, have understood what the cosmological argument is grounded on.

 

[AsceticHermit]

It is also worth buying a copy of Feser’s book called, ‘The Last Superstition.’ He has an entire explanation on Dawkins, and how Dawkins is completely ignorant of St. Thomas’ arguments. Atheists are terrified of the book.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.

Why wouldn’t God be justifiably immune from the infinite regress? Dawkins never presents an original argument. He apes Bertrand Russell when he criticizes the cosmological argument.

If God created the principle of causality, he created the principle of infinite regress. Having created that principle, how can he be subject to it?

 

[ChainBreaker]

I came across this and I wonder if Catholics find any logic to this argument Dawkins’ proposes:

from Wikipedia:

**Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments** that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

This is a straw-man of the first three arguments. They are not the same as the kalam-cosmological argument.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I came across this and I wonder if Catholics find any logic to this argument Dawkins’ proposes:

from Wikipedia:

**Criticism of the cosmological argument emerged in the 18th century by the philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant.[4]

Richard Dawkins criticized Aquinas’ collection of arguments in his book The God Delusion. He asserts that the first three arguments are essentially cosmological arguments** that rely upon an infinite regress to which God is unjustifiably immune.

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

And I would disagree with Dawkins, there is nothing ’ cosmological ’ about Aquinas’ arguments.

Suppose you take each one, one by one, and tells us what Dawkins says by way of rebuttle.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes. All ontological arguments are false. Please read this and this.

That would be incorrect. Some may be incorrect and some may be quite valid. Blanket generalizations are ususlly false. The statements in the Stanford Encyclopedia needs to be proven. And your own statements in the second link are highly questionable.

Linus2nd

 

[Gorgias]

Are we as Catholics just using the special pleading fallacy?

How would you justify the claim that this is “special pleading”?

 

[Bahman]

By the way there is nothing wrong with infinite regression if beginning is singular.

 

[Bahman]

By the way, Aquinas shows that avoiding an infinite regress is precisely what the cosmological argument does and doesn’t “rely” on it merely shows that the principle of sufficient reason upon which all of science and logic depend is jeopardized by not accepting the cosmological argument. That isn’t a case of special pleading, it is a case of warranted pleading. Otherwise we have no reason to think anything is true, reasonable or meaningful in any consistent sense at all.

Try Ed Feser’s blog for a more balanced view of what is at issue.

edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/search?q=Cosmological+argument

Anyone interested in considering what the cosmological argument is really all about should read those posts.

I doubt the editors of the Wikipedia article have read or, more importantly, have understood what the cosmological argument is grounded on.

I read Feser’s blog and it seems he and another philosopher do not understand consciousness as uncaused cause. I will open a thread shortly and discuss cosmological argument in details.

 

[John_of_Woking]

Aquinas’ first cause is still as watertight as ever

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read Feser’s blog and it seems he and another philosopher do not understand consciousness as uncaused cause. I will open a thread shortly and discuss cosmological argument in details.

Bahman, do you know what a ’ dangling modifier ’ is? When you say " … he and another ( should be; ’ other ’ ) philosopher ( s ) do not understand consciousness as uncaused cause…," what are you referring to, what in the world do do you mean? What is this ’ uncaused consciousness ’ you refer to? What are its properties? Just use plain English.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, do you know what a ’ dangling modifier ’ is? When you say " … he and another ( should be; ’ other ’ ) philosopher ( s ) do not understand consciousness as uncaused cause…," what are you referring to, what in the world do do you mean? What is this ’ uncaused consciousness ’ you refer to? What are its properties? Just use plain English.

Linus2nd

Does your consciousness is caused? No. How you could be conscious otherwise? Can your consciousness cause anything? Yes. Hence your consciousness is uncaused cause, of curse for only thing that you do. You have limited power only because of your awareness hence you can simply move your body and think. That is very you who is in charge of moving and sustaining your body. What is in charge of other changes? Other beings consciousness.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Aquinas’ first cause is still as watertight as ever

Are you saying that the first cause has no water in it?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Does your consciousness is caused? No. How you could be conscious otherwise? Can your consciousness cause anything? Yes. Hence your consciousness is uncaused cause, of curse for only thing that you do. You have limited power only because of your awareness hence you can simply move your body and think. That is very you who is in charge of moving and sustaining your body. What is in charge of other changes? Other beings consciousness.

Thomas Aquinas gives many proofs which prove there is only one uncaused cause, God, who created the universe and causes all things which have happened since and who holds our existence in his hands. Therefore he caused you to exist, he gave you a spiritual soul with an intellect by which you have self consciousness. So God caused your consciousness. So while you can use your intellect to do and cause things to happen according to your plans, you are only a secondary or instrumental cause. God is the primary and first cause of your intellect and what you do with it…

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Thomas Aquinas gives many proofs which prove there is only one uncaused cause, God, who created the universe and causes all things which have happened since and who holds our existence in his hands. Therefore he caused you to exist, he gave you a spiritual soul with an intellect by which you have self consciousness. So God caused your consciousness. So while you can use your intellect to do and cause things to happen according to your plans, you are only a secondary or instrumental cause. God is the primary and first cause of your intellect and what you do with it…

Linus2nd

Hence we are confused God’s heads since we don’t have a separate existence which can sustain itself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hence we are confused God’s heads since we don’t have a separate existence which can sustain itself.

Not sure what you said here?

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Not sure what you said here?

Linus2nd

It is very simple. Do we have an actual separated existence? No. This means that we seize to exist in absence of God hence we are not separable from God as head is not separable from Body. How you could prove that what animate you is not God but you? Where is the boundary which separate you from God? This boundary does not exist hence we are confused God’s heads.