Can something come from nothing

[Neo-Scholastic]

The unmoved mover requires that the chain of causation can't be infinitely long. The argument that it can't be infinitely long boils down to incredulity (a fallacy), a conviction that the buck has to stop somewhere...

As I stated, that objection ignores the distinction between an accidentally ordered sequence and an essentially ordered one, one based on logically prior dependency.

The first cause argument isn't much different from the unmoved mover argument. All effects requiring causes is an inference from observation of events within time and space, so inferring that this applies to the origin of time and space is a fallacy of composition, what is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole.

This objection makes the same mistake as the first. Generally people wrongly assumes that the first cause traces back in time, which is an accidentally ordered series of events.

The 'necessary being' is not necessarily a being, certainly not necessarily something that could reasonably be thought of as God, a natural phenomenon could certainly fit the bill, if the premises are sound. Maybe the necessary being is gravity. So far, if the first three 'Ways' were sound, quantum foam or other natural phenomena would fit the job description.

Second, the fallacy of composition objection assumes that something composed entirely of contingent parts could somehow magically become non-contingent. That is an incoherent position. Anything mutable is contingent (1W). If the parts mutate, which they obviously do, then the nature of the composite (the physical universe) goes from one state to another, i.e. it is mutable. Since the composite is mutable it must be contingent. As for quantum foam, nothing could be more mutable which would make it the most obviously contingent thing possible!

'Degrees' relies on a perceived implication of a perfect standard. The premise is highly questionable, not self-evident at all. The concept of perfection does not, in my humble opinion, imply an actuality of perfection.

The Fourth Way is one of the most interesting and most widely misunderstood. It relies on a particular solution to the Problem of Universals. Since most atheists adhere to some kind of nominalism, an incoherent ontology, it makes no sense to try and justify the 4W without first addressing that error.

If nature shows us anything, it's that intelligence is not required for regularity. Chaos theory shows that randomness not only can produce order, it must. The idea that only an intelligence can create order is a claim, and the teleological argument takes it as a premise. Even if true, it does not follow that the designer is a unique being, a large number of more minor beings directing events would fit the bill just as well and would explain the apparent randomness better.

Except you are describing order developing within nature not why nature-in-itself has the regularity capable of producing local order in the first place. Besides, The Fifth Way isn’t an intelligent design argument. If it were you would be correct any demiurge would work.

Mr. Agenda, I do appreciate that you find those objections sound. If it were that easy though, the 5W would not have endured for very long even back then nor would Kant and others have taken them so seriously.