Ultimate argument for God?

[AnAtheist]

J.R.:

1. Motion: Since no thing (or series of things) can move (change) itself, there must be a first, Unmoved Mover, source of all motion.

Untrue. Particles decay all by themselves, no external force required.

1. Causation: Nothing can cause its own existence. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence.

Disproven by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.

1. Necessity and Contingency: Whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.

Why?

If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come.

Disproven by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.

1. Perfection: Real degrees of real perfections presuppose the existence of that perfection itself (the Perfect Being).

Why?
Besides, some forms of perfection are mathematically impossible.

1. Design: Design can be caused only by an intelligent Designer. Mindless nature cannot design itself or come about by chance.

Yes, it can. And it does every day. Gravitation builds structures out of chaos for example.
The watch analogy is nonsense, there is no evolutionary pressure in that example that sort out fitting watches from non-fitting. Besides wathces don’t breed.

All those premises can be questioned, some conclusions are proven wrong by science today, and even if they would be correct, they do not necessarily point to a single divine creator. These are other options:

• There are many Unmoved Movers, Designers, etc… The arguments do not rule out polytheism.
• The universe is eternal, there is no beginning. (This btw is not disproven by the big bang, if the density of the universe is high enough it can keep contracting and expanding forever.) Then only #5 would apply.
• There is actually nothing, the total energy of the universe can be gauged to Zero.

Furthermore, none of the arguments say anything about an afterlife. Why should there be an afterlife besides wishful thinking? Those arguments may argue in favor of some divine creator(s) but say nothing about the Christian God.

 

[john_ennis]

Look at yourself–at us. The fact that there exist these beings who, almost to a person, wonder about the cause of their existence, does seem to suggest a cause which is intrinsically important, doesn’t it?

No? Then why do you care about the issue? Is it really only because it is annoying that so many of us are so loudly and proudly mistaken?

There could be another reason:

Thou hast made us for Thyself, O God, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee.
Saint Augustine

 

[wonkimoto]

AnAtheist:

Untrue. Particles decay all by themselves, no external force required.

Particles decay, but there is no loss of mass. Particles emit photons, beta particles, and an assortment of others as they decay.

Quote: AnAthiest

• There is actually nothing, the total energy of the universe can be gauged to Zero.

You could say there is no loss of momentum, since we’re talking about motion here. Since everything moves unless effected by something else, and that something else also is moved by another something, it cannot go back forever.

St Thomas: “But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

 

[wonkimoto]

AnAtheist:

Disproven by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle.

Your arguments from the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle totally loose me since this principle says that the more exact ones measurement of the position of an elementary particle, the less certain one is of it’s momentum. Scientists don’t really know what these particles are. There are all kinds of descriptors and behavior can be studied up to a point, but at the end of the day, all we can say is that we can cook with ‘Quanta’. The ontology of particle physics is one of sciences biggest tasks. It’s hardly in a position to answer why or why not as a first principles. Are you saying that electrons think for themselves? Are you saying they are non-existent until they are measured? Please don’t answer.
Since you are asking the questions you are at the end of this post, I can say that you don’t understand the 5 proofs given by Aquinas.
We’re way off topic here, which is conscience. I’ll post about that.

 

[AnAtheist]

wonkimoto:

Your arguments from the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle totally loose me since this principle says that the more exact ones measurement of the position of an elementary particle, the less certain one is of it’s momentum.

It also says that about time and energy. If the time difference is small enough, the energy uncertainty becomes finite. That allows for virtual particle generation, which can be measured.
The whole universe might just be one quantum fluctuation.

Since you are asking the questions you are at the end of this post, I can say that you don’t understand the 5 proofs given by Aquinas.

Sure, if someone doesn’t agree, he doesn’t understand.

 

[JLove]

AnAtheist,

I love your signature.

Verstehen Sie Deutsches?