How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Neo-Scholastic]

I liken arguments like that to a tic or spasm: you hit the end of an argument that doesn't lead to god and then just go "and that there is god!"

Uh huh yeah right. You must not have read the part where I talked about divine roles.

[Esquilax]

Good luck with that **sarcasm** I'm quite sure all your objections will be straw men based on modern misunderstandings of Classical philosophy. All of the sort Metis, the great and mighty Divinity Student, plagiarized from some dopey blog writer who clearly never actually read Aquinas.

Meh. The fives ways are just a symptom of the larger problem, this immense leap you all take to get from the vague, deistic-or-possibly-non-conscious cause you actually argue for, to the christian god you believe in. Your philosophy isn't unique enough to rate a mention, Chad: it's just yet another in a long line of intellectually barren theistic shell games that pretend to argue for a specific god, while arguing for some bland, undetermined cause in reality.

The fact that you've already decided I'm wrong before I've even finished writing the piece is just typical of your sort; for all your pretensions to intellectual rigor and deep philosophical analysis, you're really just shills for your presuppositions, mistaking bland dismissals for actual rebuttals. Because in case you didn't know- and the bulk of your postings do imply that you have not a clue about basic argumentation, when it comes to "defending" the collection of fiat assertions you have instead of justified beliefs- "you're misunderstanding that" isn't actually a rebuttal, it's a dodge.

Especially when you haven't read word fucking one of what the person you're disagreeing with has written. Trying to lump me in with Metis isn't even the slimiest shit nugget in your smug little post.

Incidentally, I did vote against Metis in the report regarding your debate; I was as disappointed in him as anyone else. It's not like the Five Ways requires much prep time to rebut; it's trivially easy. I could do it, despite your low opinion of me.

Uh huh yeah right. You must not have read the part where I talked about divine roles.

I took a look back through the entirety of your contributions to the debate, and found nothing in there that even seems to address my contention.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Exlax, if you actually think that the God of Classical Theism is in anyway deistc then you really don't have a clue.

[Pizza]

God of Classical Theism is stupid anthropomorphite bullshit.

[Longhorn]

Chaaaaaad :c

Y u no like me ._.
Can you show me step by step how you got from first cause to your god? The post you linked doesn't explain much

[robvalue]

Do people really think we're not going to notice the Grand Canyon sized non sequitur between the deistic God and a particular cartoon character? The work is all completely ahead of you at that point. A deistic God is of no relevance to anything.

These arguments aren't meant to convince sceptics, they're to pat believers on the back and make them feel rational.

[pocaracas]

I only read up to page 3, so forgive me if someone mentioned this already.
According to astrophysicists, the total sum of energy in the universe is zero. Since energy Is the same as mass, then this means that the universe is nothing, meaning it doesn't exist.
If the universe doesn't exist, then it never started to exist.
Hence no god is required. :-P

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes I am ignoring the question ‘How do you get from a deistic god to Jesus Christ?’. The reason I ignore it is because it is a dumb question for two reasons: 1) The God revealed by natural reason is not deistic and 2) it fails to distinguish the relationship between general and special revelation.
The deist concept of God is that of a Creator that ceases to influence the world He created. The God of Classical Theism, as best presented by Aquinas, remains involved at every level of His Creation by guiding and sustaining it.

General revelation makes the presence and nature of the Divine knowable to all by means of reason applied to experience. Natural reason supports a specifically Christian god that is both One and intelligible. Polytheistic religions, like Hinduism and the Greek Pantheon, do not satisfy the former. Allah does not satisfy the second. An unintelligible god cannot be known by reason. This does not necessarily mean that the Allah is not the one true god, but only that the special revelation of Islam is not supported by rational inquiry. In other words, the existence of Allah is purely subjective whereas the Christian god is objective. Buddhism also explicitly teaches that everything is subjective, to the point that everything is an illusion. In Buddhism people gain knowledge of transcendent reality by practicing austerities and rigorous training that still only provide subjective personal experiences.

Special revelation operates by God coming to us giving us knowledge of His nature that would not otherwise be available to us. That revealed knowledge includes the advent of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and the Apocalypse, among other things (like the writings of Swedenborg). General revelation allows people to sort through the various visions, traditions, practices, and scriptures to determine, like I do above, which of those are reasonable. The Judeo-Christian concept of God is entirely reasonable and currently the only one of which I am aware that is.

[Longhorn]

Um. Why exactly?

First cause. That's as far as you can get with these arguments. Exactly HOW do you establish it has to possess those properties? I mean, it's a jump even to a deistic god.

[Lucanus]

How do you prove that a "General Revelation" is genuinely a revelation from a divine being and not something made up by humans by means of their delusions, desires and emotions?

Inb4 warm fuzzies