1. Originally Posted by whatup777
The First Way: Argument from Motion
1.
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2.
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3.
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4.
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5.
Therefore nothing can move itself.
6.
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7.
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8.
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1.
We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2.
Nothing exists prior to itself.
3.
Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.
4.
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.
5.
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6.
The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7.
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1.
We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2.
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3.
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4.
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5.
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6.
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7.
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8.
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9.
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10.
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1.
There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3.
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1.
We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2.
Most natural things lack knowledge.
3.
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

I believe St.Thomas Aquinas has beat down the atheist a\$\$es yet again.

Christianity FTW!
Ok, being the evil reductionist I am...

First and second argument are first cause arguments.
One, they're are both arguments from ignorance and
Two, they are both falling victim to the special pleading fallacy.

Just because we don't have a perfect understanding of the nature of the universe doesn't give us justification to say that a deity did it, god of the gaps arguments aren't going to work here.

Last and least, just because ad infinitum causes is uncomfortable doesn't make it false.

This is perhaps the silliest of arguments. Let's bring an example, do I need to know what the ugliest possible person looks like to call Sarah Jessica Parker ugly? No. Just because we can think of a perfect property doesn't mean that property exists. Like in math there is the concept of a perfect circle, no such thing exists but we use the concept as a means to judge the roundness of other circles. Here's a quote from the God Delusion:

"That's an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God. Or substitute any dimension of comparison you like, and derive an equally fatuous conclusion." ~ Richard Dawkins.

That's three out of five, I'll tackle the argument form design and the Reductio argument later tonight or tomorrow morning.

2. The first two arguments are not arguments from ignorance, but arguments from well-founded empirical observations we all experience and upon which all our logic or systematic thinking is based upon. Besides, as the atheist I believe the onus would be upon you to provide a better explanation, rather than saying O well we don't know enough therefore I'm an atheist. By the way, the third argument is also a First Cause argument, in my opinion the best of the three, and all the arguments have to be taken together as one. Your refutation to the argument from degree, which is basically Descartes' ontological proof, is a completely false analogy. You say something to the effect that you don't need to know the ugliest person to say Sarah Jessica Parker is ugly. Another similar "refutation" is to say one can imagine the perfect island getaway, but it doesn't have to exist. Well, that is of course wrong, because implicit in the idea of perfection is existence. Therefore, that island is imperfect BECAUSE it doesn't exist, and the perfect island, just like the perfect being, would have to exist.

I'd really like to see a refutation to the contingent beings argument, seeing as it is irrefutable. God bless.

3. Originally Posted by whatup777
The first two arguments are not arguments from ignorance, but arguments from well-founded empirical observations we all experience and upon which all our logic or systematic thinking is based upon. Besides, as the atheist I believe the onus would be upon you to provide a better explanation, rather than saying O well we don't know enough therefore I'm an atheist. By the way, the third argument is also a First Cause argument, in my opinion the best of the three, and all the arguments have to be taken together as one. Your refutation to the argument from degree, which is basically Descartes' ontological proof, is a completely false analogy. You say something to the effect that you don't need to know the ugliest person to say Sarah Jessica Parker is ugly. Another similar "refutation" is to say one can imagine the perfect island getaway, but it doesn't have to exist. Well, that is of course wrong, because implicit in the idea of perfection is existence. Therefore, that island is imperfect BECAUSE it doesn't exist, and the perfect island, just like the perfect being, would have to exist.

I'd really like to see a refutation to the contingent beings argument, seeing as it is irrefutable. God bless.
Being able to imagine a perfect being does nothing to demonstrate such a thing exists. A perfect or near perfect thing doesn't have to exist for it to be used as a standard for perfection.
They are both arguments from ignorance because they assume the laws of cause and effect that govern our universe are the same that caused the universe. It's like applying Newtonian physics on the quantum level, that shit doesn't work. Thomas is making assumptions about events prior to the universe. First he assumes that there was nothing before our universe, therefore God must have done it, that's an argument from ignorance.
That's ignoring the issue of special pleading, ie. all effects have a cause but god doesn't need a cause.

Cosmological Argument (Argument from Possibility and Necessity):

First, What caused God? If you say God doesn't need a cause that's special pleading.
Second, if I granted you that the universe had a cause (which I don't, but we can cover big bang cosmology later on), why assume this first cause is a God? Or even God-like? It seems like an extremely large leap to make from, the universe had a cause therefore it's transcendent cause is a God.
Third, proponents of M-theory would argue that our universe could have arise through purely materialist means by the collision of two separate universes.

To address Thomas' version of the argument directly:
Premise 5 is pure assertion and completely indemonstrable.

Page 9 of 9 First ... 789