Its funny how up tell this very day the haters still can't discredit these five proofs. They try and think they have, but fail to understand true philosophy and the contex in which the proofs exist. The "Haters" are filled with such pride as to consider themselves smarter then St. Thomas Aquinas who is amongst the top 10 greatest thinkers of all time! Will any of you "Haters once dead be amongst this list? NO... you will be known as the pridefull hater you were. It's sad that you can't see it.
Arguement 1: premise 4 assumes that the "mover" must be god but has no proof that it is god. Until there is proof that god is the mover then 4 is false. Since 4 is false then the conclusion is also false.
Arguement 2 again assumes that their god caused everything. No proof means not acceptable.
Argeuemnt 3 premise 4 again assumes that some form of being must exist to be the cause of everything.
Why is it that everything that happened must have happened because of a god?
@lautz73 LOL You fail to understand the context of the treatise, know wonder you are all baffled! The 5 proofs is a reasoning that there is a higher intelligent force at work. Hence, what is and has been called "God". This recognizable force and higher intelligence that is labeled as "God" is not a created thing, there for not in sequence of the created world of matter which relies on a mover, this is with in the context of the proofs. There is NO error in St. Thomas's reasoning.
@pippochap What you miss is the fact that there is no proof for that higher intelligence outside of the beliefs of the "faithful". The "higer intelligence" is the arguement used in "intelligent design" and has been proven to be just another rebranding of creationism. Try again with some actual proof and maybe you'll be believed.
@lautz73 Its not about belief in these proofs, Its not about believing!!! This is where u lack understanding of what is being reasoned in the proofs. Yes, Intelligent design has bin stated in error by protestants, but this does not mean there is not clearly intelligence in nature? Nature displays gigantic systematic orders working in logical and reasonable movements to accomplish and acquire progress, this displays intelligence beyond our own. This power of intelect is what we call God.
@pippochap The proofs were being used to prove that there is an intelligent designer, aka god. Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it aren't proof of anything. Along with neatures systematic orders there is also disorder and chaos. Everything in balance.
@lautz73 Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it ARE proofs of intelligence. It is FACT that anything that has order has to be put in order by an intellect. Order needs intellect to cause it. If you throw a bunch of engine parts of a cliff they won't land in order to form a functional engine, they will be scattered in chaos. One must through intellect put the engine parts logically together to form a functioning engine. Hence, logical proof of a intelligence at work "God"
@pippochap The "painting needs a painter" fallacy. Do engines have children? Engines don't breed the way that humans do. Once you understand that it takes actual procreation to bring evolutionary change then you'll finally understand just how foolish "intelligent design" is.
@lautz73 Oddly enough, non of these arguments have anything to do with intelligent design. Actually the 5th argument is more about teleology and how things have final causes. This presupposes a law of causality which governs all things. The supreme guide in the cosmos is therefore God, who governs all things towards their ends.
@AdversusHaereses What I was trying to get across to the person is that procreation is a viable method for the supposed "intelligent design". The 5th way excludes evolution as a means of how living things have come to fulfill thier purposes. It doesn't mean that they were designed to fit in that role.
Well this is just stupid. Why does it have to be a unmoved mover? lol which is just a stupid way of saying A uncreated creator. It's stupid.
God had to move at one point to move everything in the universe. It's impossible for a non-moving object to move another unless it's influence by another object. So if god was the "mover" of everything. Then something had to move god.
@SuperMrAtheist Unmoved is not the same as immovable. God is pure act, therefore He relies on nothing but His essence to move and create a series of things.
@AdversusHaereses You have no evidence of that and it doesn't explain the difference between unmoved and immovable. Both unmoved and immoveable objects are not moving. Which is impossible for both. Again, how does an object move something if it's not moving? You fail to answer the question.
His essence? How can he move anything with his essence. I'm sorry but this is really stupid.
@SuperMrAtheist You should also take a look at the time-frame this was postulated in and what the other dominant thoughts were at the time. Considering that; this was pretty revolutionary and definitely outside the box thinking.
@SuperMrAtheist LOL............ You just made your self suond like a dumb ass!!! HAHAHA!!!! It is you who just show everyone that you are the stupid one! Clearly you are not much of a thinker LOL.... God is IMMOVABLE!!!!
@pippochap you say I sound like a dumb ass but you never said why. Just throwing out insults. Like a child. Maybe one day you can think on a much higher level than you are now.
@bjl34565 It is not possible because since things are in motion, there cannot be a series in motion which goes back infinitely or else there would be no cause to the motion at all. This would in a sense mean that things are infinitely moving and stuck in the same place. There also would be no change and no future. We have seen that motion brings about change because there is a certain finiteness to it.
@AdversusHaereses that doesnt dissprove infinite that doesnt even answer the question, why cannot the belife that everything must have a cause not be true.
@bjl34565 I did not say everything has a cause, I said that we cannot know anything through reason or experience that is the cause of itself. So we must trace the series of efficient causes back to a being who is uncaused. An infinite series is a contradiction because it would have to be caused by something so it cannot by logic exist.
@AdversusHaereses I find it interesting that everything in religion is Bronze Age or Medieval. No man of science and knowledge is religious. Deep down they are all atheist
@FreeeeS Put it like this, the one scientist who discovered the Big Bang theory and disproved Einstein's theory of a static universe was a Roman Catholic priest...
@AdversusHaereses Strange, I could have sworn the priest tried to discredit the big bang theory by calling it a "big bang" his attempt was trying to discredit it by making it sound silly.
@Zhippy No, Georges Lemaitre, a Vatican Jesuit proved the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is what disproved the previous theory proposed by Einstein known as a static universe theory.
The fifth proof also suffers from a defect. Premise 1. Natural bodies act towards an end /purpose. Why is that? What is the purpose of a rock or pebble? The premise is assumed, but its not clear that all things have a purpose or act towards a purpose.
#2 doesn't really follow from Premise 1. Its not clear that if things operate towards a purpose that they were designed to do this. If I find a purpose for a stone, say smashing watermelons. I designed the purpose, but it's not intrinsic.
The fourth syllogistic way premise # 3 can be refuted:
Premise: The Maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus
Patently false, the maximum of the genus HOMO is Homo sapiens sapiens namely us, and the cause of all that is in the genus HOMO is not us but a previous inferior form . You can substitute another species other than man in here for the counter-example. Biology isn't my specialty but this is clearly a false premise.
@LurkingDawn You are confusing efficient cause with formal and material causes. The maximum of human beings is not homo sapiens sapiens. Or else that would infer that human beings have caused themselves, which is absurd. Something superior to the genus homo sapiens sapiens is the cause of all beings. Some resemble this being to a greater extent than other beings.
Its funny how up tell this very day the haters still can't discredit these five proofs. They try and think they have, but fail to understand true philosophy and the contex in which the proofs exist. The "Haters" are filled with such pride as to consider themselves smarter then St. Thomas Aquinas who is amongst the top 10 greatest thinkers of all time! Will any of you "Haters once dead be amongst this list? NO... you will be known as the pridefull hater you were. It's sad that you can't see it.
pippochap 1 month ago
Arguement 1: premise 4 assumes that the "mover" must be god but has no proof that it is god. Until there is proof that god is the mover then 4 is false. Since 4 is false then the conclusion is also false.
Arguement 2 again assumes that their god caused everything. No proof means not acceptable.
Argeuemnt 3 premise 4 again assumes that some form of being must exist to be the cause of everything.
Why is it that everything that happened must have happened because of a god?
lautz73 1 month ago
@lautz73 LOL You fail to understand the context of the treatise, know wonder you are all baffled! The 5 proofs is a reasoning that there is a higher intelligent force at work. Hence, what is and has been called "God". This recognizable force and higher intelligence that is labeled as "God" is not a created thing, there for not in sequence of the created world of matter which relies on a mover, this is with in the context of the proofs. There is NO error in St. Thomas's reasoning.
pippochap 3 weeks ago
@pippochap What you miss is the fact that there is no proof for that higher intelligence outside of the beliefs of the "faithful". The "higer intelligence" is the arguement used in "intelligent design" and has been proven to be just another rebranding of creationism. Try again with some actual proof and maybe you'll be believed.
lautz73 3 weeks ago
@lautz73 Its not about belief in these proofs, Its not about believing!!! This is where u lack understanding of what is being reasoned in the proofs. Yes, Intelligent design has bin stated in error by protestants, but this does not mean there is not clearly intelligence in nature? Nature displays gigantic systematic orders working in logical and reasonable movements to accomplish and acquire progress, this displays intelligence beyond our own. This power of intelect is what we call God.
pippochap 3 weeks ago
@pippochap The proofs were being used to prove that there is an intelligent designer, aka god. Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it aren't proof of anything. Along with neatures systematic orders there is also disorder and chaos. Everything in balance.
lautz73 3 weeks ago
@lautz73 Complexity of life and the apparent design behind it ARE proofs of intelligence. It is FACT that anything that has order has to be put in order by an intellect. Order needs intellect to cause it. If you throw a bunch of engine parts of a cliff they won't land in order to form a functional engine, they will be scattered in chaos. One must through intellect put the engine parts logically together to form a functioning engine. Hence, logical proof of a intelligence at work "God"
pippochap 1 week ago
@pippochap The "painting needs a painter" fallacy. Do engines have children? Engines don't breed the way that humans do. Once you understand that it takes actual procreation to bring evolutionary change then you'll finally understand just how foolish "intelligent design" is.
lautz73 1 week ago
@lautz73 Oddly enough, non of these arguments have anything to do with intelligent design. Actually the 5th argument is more about teleology and how things have final causes. This presupposes a law of causality which governs all things. The supreme guide in the cosmos is therefore God, who governs all things towards their ends.
AdversusHaereses 1 week ago
@AdversusHaereses What I was trying to get across to the person is that procreation is a viable method for the supposed "intelligent design". The 5th way excludes evolution as a means of how living things have come to fulfill thier purposes. It doesn't mean that they were designed to fit in that role.
lautz73 1 week ago
Well this is just stupid. Why does it have to be a unmoved mover? lol which is just a stupid way of saying A uncreated creator. It's stupid.
God had to move at one point to move everything in the universe. It's impossible for a non-moving object to move another unless it's influence by another object. So if god was the "mover" of everything. Then something had to move god.
SuperMrAtheist 2 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist Unmoved is not the same as immovable. God is pure act, therefore He relies on nothing but His essence to move and create a series of things.
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
@AdversusHaereses You have no evidence of that and it doesn't explain the difference between unmoved and immovable. Both unmoved and immoveable objects are not moving. Which is impossible for both. Again, how does an object move something if it's not moving? You fail to answer the question.
His essence? How can he move anything with his essence. I'm sorry but this is really stupid.
SuperMrAtheist 2 months ago
@SuperMrAtheist You should also take a look at the time-frame this was postulated in and what the other dominant thoughts were at the time. Considering that; this was pretty revolutionary and definitely outside the box thinking.
TheCombatMunkey 1 month ago
@TheCombatMunkey It's not so revolutionary now.
SuperMrAtheist 1 month ago
@SuperMrAtheist LOL............ You just made your self suond like a dumb ass!!! HAHAHA!!!! It is you who just show everyone that you are the stupid one! Clearly you are not much of a thinker LOL.... God is IMMOVABLE!!!!
pippochap 1 month ago
@pippochap you say I sound like a dumb ass but you never said why. Just throwing out insults. Like a child. Maybe one day you can think on a much higher level than you are now.
SuperMrAtheist 4 weeks ago
SHUT THE FUCK UP BITCH
JenkemBaby 5 months ago
Where was the proof at?
TPKJ 6 months ago
logical fallacy alert
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 9 months ago
@FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 Go on then, point them out.
AdversusHaereses 9 months ago
@AdversusHaereses the whole thing
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 9 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Premisis 3 is unsound, infinite regress is possible.
bjl34565 5 months ago
@bjl34565 It is not possible because since things are in motion, there cannot be a series in motion which goes back infinitely or else there would be no cause to the motion at all. This would in a sense mean that things are infinitely moving and stuck in the same place. There also would be no change and no future. We have seen that motion brings about change because there is a certain finiteness to it.
AdversusHaereses 5 months ago
@AdversusHaereses that doesnt dissprove infinite that doesnt even answer the question, why cannot the belife that everything must have a cause not be true.
bjl34565 5 months ago
@bjl34565 I did not say everything has a cause, I said that we cannot know anything through reason or experience that is the cause of itself. So we must trace the series of efficient causes back to a being who is uncaused. An infinite series is a contradiction because it would have to be caused by something so it cannot by logic exist.
AdversusHaereses 5 months ago
any random ready philosophy teacher can point out these fallacies and disprove these points eloquently just ask one
FreeeeS 10 months ago
@FreeeeS I find it hard since the 5 ways of St Thomas Aquinas survive to this day.
AdversusHaereses 10 months ago
@AdversusHaereses LOL of course but it is not because it was not refuted
FreeeeS 10 months ago
@AdversusHaereses I find it interesting that everything in religion is Bronze Age or Medieval. No man of science and knowledge is religious. Deep down they are all atheist
FreeeeS 10 months ago
@FreeeeS Put it like this, the one scientist who discovered the Big Bang theory and disproved Einstein's theory of a static universe was a Roman Catholic priest...
AdversusHaereses 10 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Strange, I could have sworn the priest tried to discredit the big bang theory by calling it a "big bang" his attempt was trying to discredit it by making it sound silly.
Zhippy 9 months ago
@Zhippy No, Georges Lemaitre, a Vatican Jesuit proved the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is what disproved the previous theory proposed by Einstein known as a static universe theory.
AdversusHaereses 9 months ago
@AdversusHaereses Hm, must have been someone else then.
Zhippy 9 months ago
@FreeeeS
Richard Collins, headed the unmapping of the human genome.
theman77777777232 7 months ago
these are all logical fallacies refuted ages ago by philosopher's I dont recall yet
FreeeeS 10 months ago
The fifth proof also suffers from a defect. Premise 1. Natural bodies act towards an end /purpose. Why is that? What is the purpose of a rock or pebble? The premise is assumed, but its not clear that all things have a purpose or act towards a purpose.
#2 doesn't really follow from Premise 1. Its not clear that if things operate towards a purpose that they were designed to do this. If I find a purpose for a stone, say smashing watermelons. I designed the purpose, but it's not intrinsic.
LurkingDawn 10 months ago
@LurkingDawn Just because some beings do not have visible ends/purposes does not refute the claim that they do have ends.
AdversusHaereses 10 months ago
The fourth syllogistic way premise # 3 can be refuted:
Premise: The Maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus
Patently false, the maximum of the genus HOMO is Homo sapiens sapiens namely us, and the cause of all that is in the genus HOMO is not us but a previous inferior form . You can substitute another species other than man in here for the counter-example. Biology isn't my specialty but this is clearly a false premise.
LurkingDawn 10 months ago
@LurkingDawn You are confusing efficient cause with formal and material causes. The maximum of human beings is not homo sapiens sapiens. Or else that would infer that human beings have caused themselves, which is absurd. Something superior to the genus homo sapiens sapiens is the cause of all beings. Some resemble this being to a greater extent than other beings.
AdversusHaereses 10 months ago