God exists subjectively?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Exists subjectively" is an oxymoron.

Thanks for playing; please try again.

[Edwardo Piet]

God doesn't exist in the mind. The concept wish for God exists in the mind. Superman doesn't exist in the mind. The concept of Superman exists in the mind.

Fixed that for you.  They do so want their fairy tales to be true.

Actually we're both right

[Tonus]

Aren't each of the five arguments by Aquinas an example of special pleading? "Everything that is A must be subject to B, except for that A which we decided is not and therefore breaks the endless loop which would otherwise result." I'm guessing he never successfully applied that thinking in his day job as a janitor.

[Edwardo Piet]

They're all non-sequiturs.

[theologian]

Care to demonstrate it here?

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-wa...dead-ends/

Thanks for sharing this. I have finished reading it. Let me demonstrate here how that one too didn't discredit the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Per your website, the objection against the First Way is that Theory of Relativity shows that motion must be from the observer only. However, aside from missing the point (for motion in the First Way means change in the general sense and not only change in location), it missed what Theory of Relativity is. For, theory of relativity doesn't deny the existence of motion of the object, instead it just shows that the perception of motion is affected by the motion of the one who perceives, hence the relativity. So, the first objection didn't discredited the 1st way of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The objection to the Second Way shows that matter are just changed and not created, and so the premise of Second Way that shows that matter must be caused is wrong. However, it is not true that matter are just changed and not created, because matter has a particular form and property. Now, every thing that that has a form and property must be defined by something or Someone, for nothing forms itself. So, the objection is false and therefore wrong. It was just a product of wrong philosophy called Scientism.

The objection to the Third Way is that the universe is eternal, for Big Bang may have been just an eternal expansion and compression of the universe, and therefore it is not contingent, and so the premise in the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas that imply the the universe must be contingent is not true. But, the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas doesn't really imply that the universe is not eternal and therefore not contingent. It may be that the universe is a necessary being. However, in the Third Way of St. Thomas Aquinas, he distinguishes a necessary being that is caused, and a necessary being that is not caused. But, again, the universe cannot be a necessary being that doesn't have a cause, for the universe has a particular form and configuration. So, the objection to the Third Way misses many points.

The objection to the Fourth Way misses the point too, for it talks about essences while the Fourth Way talks about the degree of truth and goodness, which is reality or being in other words, for truth and goodness is still being which are just looked on other aspect, such as, being, which is looked in terms of knowing, is truth, while being, in terms of willing, is good.

Finally, the objection to the Fifth Way appeals to the proposition that mind comes from mindless, and so even if the objects around us are like made by a Mind, that mind must be from a mindless too which cannot be God and also shows that the premise that everything that acts to a certain end must be caused by a mind is false. Now, when examined how did the author of the objection arrived at his proposition that mind comes from mindless, he has appealed to the case of feral children whom didn't develop intellect and therefore, those who have developed intellect got their intellect in society and so the proposition goes that mind comes form the mindless. But, society are product of human nature, and human nature has mind. So, his proposition that mind came from mindless cannot be true. Therefore, his objection too here is false.

So, either I'm not being biased per demonstration above or I'm still biased by demonstrating my counter argument to the website's objection incorrectly. If latter, then please show it here.

[Minimalist]

I argue that what is subjective is the belief that there is no God

It is not a ""belief," dummy.  It is the net result of legions of bible-thumping assholes singularly failing to produce any evidence for their fucking fairy tales.

Don't blame us for your incompetence.

[theologian]

Aren't each of the five arguments by Aquinas an example of special pleading?  "Everything that is A must be subject to B, except for that A which we decided is not and therefore breaks the endless loop which would otherwise result."  I'm guessing he never successfully applied that thinking in his day job as a janitor.

If the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are special pleading, then everything shall be special pleading. As, he has shown us sound arguments from starting with the thing we surely know to exist: the things we can sense with our five senses and then he proceeded with logical demonstration. Hence, to deny the conclusion of 5 Ways that God must exist is to deny either reality or logic or both.

Further, it is not true that it has been decided in the 5 Way that God is special. It was demonstrated that by implying His non-existence, nothing will exist. But, that nothing will exist is absurd, for the starting point is that we know things exist. Hence, it is not just a special pleading, but it was realistically and logically demonstrated.

---

God exists as a concept.  

For a concept to be considered reality, there must exist the proper evidence to support it.

There has never been evidence to support the existence of god, despite there having occurred throughout history many proofs for the existence of many concepts.

Clearly, you don't need proper evidence to consider God a reality as so many do.  What we experience (or your word, conceptualize) as reality is not bound by rules of logic/physics/etc...

Your brain just has to trick you into believing God is real, and in the reality you experience, there is some God.  

Again, you keep saying concept vs. reality, but humans experience their conceptualization of the world.  Not the reality of the world.

I think we are experiencing the world and concept is built first due to that experience.

3. It is not true that there are no evidence to support the existence of God. The 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas is an evidence that God exist and to deny that is to deny both reality and logic, for his 5 ways are arguments which starts from the things we can sense with our 5 senses and it proceed with valid logic and true premises like principle of sufficient reason.

Well look at that, yet another word you only understand when it suits you...add it to the growing list.  No, aquinas five ways aren't -evidence-...they're -arguments-... :looks up:

I find them less than compelling.

Well, what is evidence? Isn't whatever shows you the truth is an evidence? But, arguments shows us the truth granted that it is sound. Therefore, arguments are evidence.

I argue that what is subjective is the belief that there is no God

It is not a ""belief," dummy.  It is the net result of legions of bible-thumping assholes singularly failing to produce any evidence for their fucking fairy tales.

Don't blame us for your incompetence.

Well, we must first settle whether there is God or there isn't, before we talk about the Bible, because the truth of the Bible relies on the authority of God. So, you want to talk about that seems to you a fairy tale? If that is the case, do you grant that God exist?

[LostLocke]

Was Necromancy really performed on the 5 ways PRATT again?

[Minimalist]

Well, we must first settle whether there is God or there isn't, before we talk about the Bible, because the truth of the Bible relies on the authority of God.

No.  You cannot provide evidence that your god is anything other than a delusion.  Your bible on the other hand does exist.  Cobbled together since the 3d century BC, added to and subtracted from by various men, all of whom were seeking to exert control over gullible peasants.  The muslims feel that the koran relies on the authority of god, too.  What do you have to say about that?

[Tonus]

If the Five Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas are special pleading, then everything shall be special pleading.

If you accept his Five Ways, then special pleading is required. The moment you decide that a universal rule that applies to everything does not apply to one thing in particular, then the rule is no longer universal. As soon as you decide that there has to be an "unmoved mover" you have invalidated the premise that everything that moves was acted upon by something else, because you introduced an exception. At that point I can simply decide that the unmoved mover is something else and discard God with the same amount of effort that was required to introduce him.