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. Maybe it does, but if so, there's no requirement for the unmoved mover to be a conscious being, and especially not to be any particular version of a creator God.
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.
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. And as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm not sure I buy that it's coherently conceivable that nothing could 'exist' instead of something, hence quantum foam could be a 'necessary being'.
'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.
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.
The first three Ways don't get you to an intelligent being, at best they get you to a 'something that started it all' if the premise that infinite natural causality can't possibly be the case is true. The last two ways involve premises more questionable that the first three.
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.
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. And as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I'm not sure I buy that it's coherently conceivable that nothing could 'exist' instead of something, hence quantum foam could be a 'necessary being'.
'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.
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.
The first three Ways don't get you to an intelligent being, at best they get you to a 'something that started it all' if the premise that infinite natural causality can't possibly be the case is true. The last two ways involve premises more questionable that the first three.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
