|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 26, 2010 21:39:18 GMT -4
I've just been introduced to Thomas Aquinas's proofs for the existence of God:
1. Argumentum ex motu, or the argument of the unmoved mover;
2. Argumentum ex ratione causae efficientis, or the argument of the first cause;
3. Argumentum ex contingentia, or the argument from contingency;
4. Argumentum ex gradu, or the argument from degree; and
5. Argumentum ex fine, or the teleological argument.
I find it hard to believe that all atheist philosophers have been silenced or converted, so I assume there are refutations. Indeed, as I look at them, I wonder if there's some element of circularity about them. But I was hoping someone might be able to point me towards some discussions.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 26, 2010 21:53:29 GMT -4
;D ;D ;D Oh boy, I know this will be an interesting thread... Usually, any Christian philosopher will say God exists because the Bible says so...  Just kidding. Have you read Bertrand Russel's "Why I Am Not A Christian". (the original lecture here: www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html ) I haven't read the book that was published later, but I do have at home a rebuttal called "Why Bertrand Russel is Not A Christian" Richard Dawkins and Christopher Higgins seem to be the most loud and prominent atheists today. I don't know if I'd describe them as philosophers, though. More like a scientist and a writer. They are not quiet men, they are angry, but can say interesting things sometimes. I'm finding that the argument usually points to the question of how did the world come into existence - saying that something had to create the initial state of the world. A religious person might point out that even in science, we can only speculate what happened after the first millisecond of the big bang. But what created the mass in the first place? God of course. Scientists, when this problem is posed to them can say "We don't know", but that answer is not good enough. Kant says: T here are three types of proof for the existance of God:
God is the most perfect conceivable being. Existence is more perfect than non-existence. God by definition exists.
Everything contingent must have a cause. If this cause is also contingent, then it too must also have a cause. This chain of causes and effects must have a beginning - a necessary cause. This necessary cause must be God.
Observations about the particular constitution of the sensible world provide proof of the existence of God.To me, the way God is described in the Bible is definitely not the most perfect conceivable being. |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 26, 2010 22:25:14 GMT -4
An acquaintance was trying out Intelligent Design on me on day. It was pretty easy to bat that down logically, but not to convenience my friend. The next argument I proposed was like this. Say ID is true, that still doesn't prove the existence of the Christian God or the divinity of Christ. He sputtered a bit then backed down.
All the indirect logic in the world can never prove a specific deity, that requires direct proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 27, 2010 6:22:31 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 27, 2010 7:30:56 GMT -4
I find it hard to believe that all atheist philosophers have been silenced or converted, so I assume there are refutations. . More specifically, in this instance, the entry for Mr. Aquinas links to rebuttals of all five. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Higgins... [/i] I don't know if I'd characterize Dawkins as "angry." Hitches is quite simply blunt. Who, among cosmologists, claims the mass of the universe was "created" at all? The Big Bang theory describes the initiation of universal expansion from a singularity, not a "creation" event. Yes, defining a god into existence. One can "prove" the existence of anything using this <cough>logic</cough>. Invisible pink unicorn meat is the most prefect conceivable food, yadda yadda... (Oh, wait, that's the banana.) Furthermore, the qualifiers on "perfect" merely weaken the argument. "Most perfect" describes that which is closest to, without actually being, perfect. "More perfect than" is even less stringent. A regular pentagon is a more perfect circle than a square is, but it's still not a circle. Kant is categorically stating that his god is imperfect. Existence is more perfect than non-existence? So "perfect vacuum" is an oxymoron? And what excuses the god thing from infinite regress? Amen. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2010 14:40:07 GMT -4
I don't know if I'd characterize Dawkins as "angry." Hitches is quite simply blunt. Dawkins has always seemed angry to me. Arrogant, certainly, and hurting his own cause. Hitche ns, I don't know enough about to say. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2010 15:24:47 GMT -4
Arrogancy is par for the course for noisy atheists. After all, they believe they are right where around 90% of humanity is wrong.
I rather suspect that logical arguments for the existence of God are flawed by design. That is, that God doesn't want people to be convinced of His existence through logic (at least, not through logic alone).
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 27, 2010 16:20:09 GMT -4
Arrogancy is par for the course for noisy atheists. I would say the same of noisy believers as well. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 27, 2010 16:54:41 GMT -4
I'd say that Arrogancy is par for the course for the human condition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 27, 2010 17:39:00 GMT -4
Arrogancy is par for the course for noisy atheists. After all, they believe they are right where around 90% of humanity is wrong. Funny how some people can say that God, angels, saints, miracles and the devil exists and not be arrogant, but someone else says that its all nonsense, and that person is arrogant. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 27, 2010 19:15:38 GMT -4
I'd say arrogance, but that may be . . . the English language.
There are arrogant people of all religious stripes. I can point out a wide range of idiots of my own faith. I can point out a wide range of idiots period. Some people forget that arrogance doesn't convince anyone of anything except that they're done talking to you.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 27, 2010 22:04:47 GMT -4
Did I say that religious people are never arrogant?
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 28, 2010 1:45:50 GMT -4
After all, they believe they are right where around 90% of humanity is wrong. Appeal to popularity. At some point in time, 90% of humanity believed the earth was flat. Did that make it true? Secondly, how can one be "wrong" about their absence of belief in something? Remember, you are only slightly less atheistic than I am. On a related note, what percentage of humanity do you believe is wrong, in that it does not follow the same religious tenets you do? Is that percentage above or below the threshold value at which such belief constitutes "arrogance?" Something else on which we absolutely agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 28, 2010 5:09:47 GMT -4
The taste of fresh orange juice = God exists. QED.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 28, 2010 6:33:08 GMT -4
At some point in time, 90% of humanity believed the earth was flat. Evidence? |
|
