(August 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Hume presents the two as discrete, but not necessarily events.  The classic example of a billiard ball hitting another represents two discrete parts, the cause - the first billiard ball hitting the second - and the effect - the movement of the struck billiard ball.  They are considered discrete because they are.

That is exactly his mistake in a nutshell. There is only one event of which the cause is the first billiard ball and the effect is the transfer of momentum to the second. Cause: ball #1. Effect: transfer of momentum to ball #2.

Aquinas 1, Hume 0

(August 3, 2015 at 9:43 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Inventing attributes of matter like a class of dispositional properties only makes things worse..This adds nothing to our understanding.

Glass is a substance that has many properties of which one is the disposition of fragility. When a dispositional property is identified it tells you that substance X when subjected to conditions Y will consistently react in a specific way barring any other influences. That seems like a useful kind of knowledge.

Hey, Chad? Are you ever going to explain your line of reasoning from first cause to your god? ._.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:39 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Hey, Chad? Are you ever going to explain your line of reasoning from first cause to your god? ._.

Of course not.
A vaguely defined human-like(has human feelings, gives commands, etc) first cause is a childish and empty view. Philosophical apologetics is a smokescreen for this fact.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:39 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Hey, Chad? Are you ever going to explain your line of reasoning from first cause to your god? ._.

Of course not, he knows he can't so he won't bother.  That's SOP for theists.

It should be called the just 'cause argument.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:39 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Hey, Chad? Are you ever going to explain your line of reasoning from first cause to your god? ._.

You can find the rational steps by which you get from the Unmoved Mover/First Cause/Necessary in my opening statement in the debate area (ChadWooters versus Metis, “Resolved: Using the ‘Five Ways’ found in Article 1, Question 2 of the Summa Theological, Thomas Aquinas successfully demonstrates the existence of God.”)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1007461

These proofs sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 2:39 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Hey, Chad? Are you ever going to explain your line of reasoning from first cause to your god? ._.

You can find the rational steps by which you get from the Unmoved Mover/First Cause/Necessary  in my opening statement in the debate area (ChadWooters versus Metis, “Resolved: Using the ‘Five Ways’ found in Article 1, Question 2 of the Summa Theological, Thomas Aquinas successfully demonstrates the existence of God.”)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1007461

These proofs sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

Heh, I'm writing a blog post about the huge, conspicuous leaps that arguments like the five ways use to get to god out of nowhere. 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!"

As though an assertion like that means anything at all. As though you can just sweep all the specific doctrines and beliefs attached to christianity under the rug and pretend that a deistic cause is sufficient to demonstrate what you really believe.

I don't see how you came to your conclusion from that post. It's just an assertion.

Can you present, step by step, your line of reasoning from first cause to deistic deity to theistic god to yhwh to your particular version of yhwh?

(August 6, 2015 at 2:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 2:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: You can find the rational steps by which you get from the Unmoved Mover/First Cause/Necessary  in my opening statement in the debate area (ChadWooters versus Metis, “Resolved: Using the ‘Five Ways’ found in Article 1, Question 2 of the Summa Theological, Thomas Aquinas successfully demonstrates the existence of God.”)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...pid1007461

These proofs sufficiently demonstrate the existence of the God of Classical Theism.

Heh, I'm writing a blog post about the huge, conspicuous leaps that arguments like the five ways use to get to god out of nowhere. 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!"

As though an assertion like that means anything at all. As though you can just sweep all the specific doctrines and beliefs attached to christianity under the rug and pretend that a deistic cause is sufficient to demonstrate what you really believe.  

I took on the Quinque Viae a long time ago and found it utterly laughable, I'm sure you're going to find the same thing because of all of the claims made, none of them lead to any specific gods, apologists just say "See!  My God!"  Yeah... not so much.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: [quote='ChadWooters' pid='1015400' dateline='1438887235']

You can find the rational steps by which you get from the Unmoved Mover/First Cause/Necessary  in my opening statement in the debate area (ChadWooters versus Metis, “Resolved: Using the ‘Five Ways’ found in Article 1, Question 2 of the Summa Theological, Thomas Aquinas successfully demonstrates the existence of God.”)

http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889-po...1007461I'm writing a blog post about the huge, conspicuous leaps that arguments like the five ways use to get to god out of nowhere.

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.