St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of the existence of God

[IWantGod]

Yes, unstable ones die. It’s stable ones that don’t.

Atoms are not alive, and so it’s meaningless to say that they die. Instead of persisting in error, it would do you good to recognize the inconsistency of metaphysical-naturalism with the world we actually observe.

 

[STT]

That’s not an argument. Saying that a thing will die if it doesn’t act towards the preservation of it’s being is just an observation. That doesn’t change the fact that there are physical beings that are in fact acting for the preservation of their existence. That makes sense if an intelligent being intended physical nature to behave that way, because the preservation of “life” as a concept is an intelligent end not a physical end… But given the fact physical processes are fundamentally blind to that end, if there is no intelligent cause, then the existence of such activity makes no intelligible sense.

Yes, that is not an argument. It is a fact.

 

[Delusioned]

Atoms are not alive, and so it’s meaningless to say that they die.

It’s all just chemistry Bob. And that includes life.

 

[atjar]

And of course it must be a Christian god.

 

[Start]

That’s determined by other arguments.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s all just chemistry Bob. And that includes life.

No-scientist would say that an atom is alive, and there is a reason for that which you clearly don’t understand.

 

[Delusioned]

No-scientist would say that an atom is alive

So you’re discounting pantheists then. Besides, you’re the one who brought up atoms…not me.

Death = ceases to exist…atoms can cease to exist.

 

[IWantGod]

So you’re discounting pantheists then.

I prefer to stick to the observable facts and make reasonable inferences from there.

Death = ceases to exist…atoms can cease to exist.

You cannot redefine the meaning of things to suit your bias and expect me to roll over and applaude your efforts.

 

[Delusioned]

You cannot redefine the meaning of things to suit your bias and expect me to roll over and applaude your efforts.

I expect no such thing. I expect that you will vehemently defend your position no matter how inadequate and illogical it may be. That’s what people do. But it doesn’t help your argument.

 

[IWantGod]

But it doesn’t help your case.

Neither will it help your case to argue that atoms are alive. Any rational person is going to be left scratching their heads. It’s not me that’s being unreasonable. In fact the only reason you came out with such an argument was not because you wanted to be reasonable, it is because you understood where my argument was leading you and you wanted to get out of the argument regardless of how unreasonable it made you look.

When it comes to the truth God makes fools of men.

 

[Delusioned]

Neither will it help your case to argue that atoms are alive. Any rational person is going to be left scratching their heads. It’s not me that’s being unreasonable. In fact the only reason you came out with such an argument was not because you wanted to be reasonable, it is because you understood where my argument was leading you and you wanted to get out of the argument regardless of how unreasonable it made you look.

It would seem to me that you’re the one who’s actually deflecting here. Because you’re positing the existence of an intelligent cause where none is needed.

Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are all that are required to produce the end that you insist implies the existence of an intelligent cause. But why argue for the existence of an intelligent cause where none is needed?

 

[Start]

Death = ceases to exist…atoms can cease to exist.

I thought matter can’t be destroyed and an atom is matter right?

 

[STT]

I thought matter can’t be destroyed and an atom is matter right?

Electron has a life time which is bigger than 6.6×10^28 yr.

 

[IWantGod]

It would seem to me that you’re the one who’s actually deflecting here. Because you’re positing the existence of an intelligent cause where none is needed.

So you keep saying, and continue to ignore the argument.

Physics, chemistry, and natural selection are all that are required to produce the end

Science describes physical activity and their properties. It’s not metaphysics.

Science cannot in principle explain why physical objects have goal direction in their behavior; science can only describe that behavior and the processes involved. If physical reality is all that exists, and If physical processes are blind and do not act for a purpose, then it doesn’t make rational sense that we find physical objects clearly acting for a purpose, unless an intelligent being intended physical reality to behave that way. You are a human, you experience this in yourself, so there is no reasonable excuse to deny the reality of your experiences.

 

[Delusioned]

I thought matter can’t be destroyed and an atom is matter right?

Matter/Energy can’t be destroyed. But an atom is more than mere matter. It’s matter in a specific arrangement. An arrangement which can cease to exist.

 

[Start]

What happens to it after?

 

[Start]

But then it just becomes something else.

 

[JMMJ]

I find it so amusing that we humans believe we will ever know the answer to the origin of what we understand in our limited way. We will never know what came first, how it came or if our universe has existed infinitely and will continue to do so for forever. The religious among us believe that, regardless of all that, God is the creator.

Some saint said this, some scientist says that. Really? No. We aren’t meant to know some things, I believe.

 

[Delusioned]

Science cannot in principle explain why physical objects have goal direction in their behavior;

Absolutely they can.

science can only describe that behavior and the processes involved.

And that’s why things have goal direction. Because of the processes involved.

 

[IWantGod]

Absolutely they can.

Science cannot in principle quantify goal direction. It’s purpose driven activity.