VP = Virtual Particle? Okay, it seems to me that you have made an assertion here - that VPs can only exist in a pre-existing universe. On what do you base this assumption?
its not an assumption, its pretty well known. they are the result of an existent vacuum, they borrow the energy to exist from the vacuum, so to speak, they are also known as “vacuum fluctuations” for this reason. no vacuum, no VP. they also result from interactions of existent particles. ergo, they exist only in that a universe already exists.
Not sure what you’re saying here.
the singularity generally assumed in the Big Bang theory
I still can’t see how you’ve explained the ontological ramifications of Aquinas. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I thought you were saying effectively, “If people understood the ontological ramifications of Aquinas they wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him.” Are you saying, “If Aquinas is right, then God exists and this is a big deal?” Because that’s a bit of an anti-climax to be honest! His logic is easily shown to be flawed, and just because if he were right it would it would have huge ramifications, that doesn’t mean he should be considered right because the ramifications would be huge. Or am I missing something? In which case, I apologise - perhaps you could spell it out?
im not sure what youre even asking at this point, ithink maybe you read alot more into this phrase than is warranted. and btw, Aquinas isnt so easily dismissed but let me domonstrate below.
“those who think that Aquinas is easily dismissed on some **scientific basis **tend to miss the ontological ramifications of what he is saying.”
i was refering to the above mistaken notions of being, exhibited in VP, as above.
Okay (proofs from Wikipedia):
Argument from Unmoved Mover:
Point 3: “An infinite regress of movers is impossible.” This is an assertion that cannot be proved.
it is impossible in that were it to be the case, no chain could exist. unless every element came into being, self supporting,
for no reason which is a violation of the PSR, the basis of the scientific method. it is a POOF! theory, no different than G-ddidit. one might call it itjusthappened. of course the problem being in that a denial of the PSR also denies the scientific method.
Point 5: “This mover is what we call God.” This is either a sidestep whereby Aquinas calls something God without ascribing all the qualities that are generally ascribed to God (ie. he could be just calling natural phenomena God), OR an unjustified leap of logic to say that the unmoved mover can be nothing OTHER than God.
its from the undeniable mathematical odds of Messianic Prophecy. the very reason that the first Christians accepted that Christ was the Messiah. it is unique to Christianity.
Same problems with Argument from First Cause.
same answers
Argument from Contingency, one problem is that we start out talking about “things” and then suddenly call them “beings.” Implicitly giving them sentience. Then the final step is to assert that this conjured-up being is God.
in metaphysics,“beings” just means things that “be”, things that exist, so to speak. where did you ever get that idea?
Argument from Degree is a purely conceptual argument with no instantiation. And another leap of logic - “This pinnacle is whom we call God.”
perfection generally means “completeness” G-d as the maximal state of being. the ground state of existence. being complete in that He encompasses all existent things.
Teleological Argument:
Step one: “All natural bodies in the world act towards ends.” There’s no proof of this. There’s also a semantic error in the use of the word ‘act’ which implies purpose for which no evidence exists.
one cannnot assign design before it is found, but take the exxample of free will, if it is fake, it must be designed so, if it is real, it must be designed as so. look up “warpspeedpeteys’ proof” for a longer explanation.
As you can see, all five ‘proofs’ are easily refuted.
and as you can now see, it wasnt so easy as a search on atheist websites makes it seem. though i freely admit that some are more difficult to defend then others.
These are just my attempts - type ‘aquinas refuted’ into your favourite search engine and you’ll find plenty more.
yes, ive seen them, didnt you deny that you were getting your arguments mainly from atheist websites on another thread? maybe that was someone else, id have too look it up.
If you think I’m not ‘understanding Aquinas’ then perhaps he should have been clearer.
you are not, as i showed above, you need to actually research metaphysics and not rely on biased websites, otherwise you wind up thinking things that arent necessarily the case as above.
If you think I’m not ‘understanding science’ then please tell me specifically what I’m not understanding!
i did above.
It seems that your definition of ‘running when being cornered’ equates to mine of ‘pointing out the problems in your logic.’
no, i was refering to all the times you simply jumped threads when you couldnt find a counter argument that upheld your cherished belief in atheism.
It’s somewhat arrogant of you to assume you’ve ever ‘cornered’ me - perhaps you could point out where!
sure, if you really want me too, i can do so.
Your pattern, which I’ve seen in many other posts, is to call ‘dodge’ whenever someone disagrees with you, even when their logic is perfectly sound. If anybody is evasive, it is you!
no, i called your dodging when you were actually dodging the argument. your logic is no where near sound. case in point above, you thought that the word “being” implied sentience
