(November 24, 2016 at 10:30 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:24 am)Mathilda Wrote: So conclusion, you cannot refute my five arguments without refuting St Thoma Aquinas. My arguments remain unrefuted. By your standards of logic, your god does not exist.

So conclusion, God does exist.

Ah right, so now we have two conclusions using your standards of logic. Which one do we pick and why?

We should abandon pseudo-logic and rely on scientific evidence instead.

(November 24, 2016 at 9:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: You know?... I've been on this forum for a few years, now... and I think it' sthe first time I see all these put out like this.

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote:  
So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

• Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
  
• Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
  
• Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
  
• Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
  
• Therefore nothing can move itself.
  
• Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
  
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  
• One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
  
• Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
  
• The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.
  

I'm tempted to apply this to the quantum world, where no motion is the same as a temperature of zero-Kelvin.

I took out your bolding and left the bit I want to address - one question: why?
Why assume that something beyond nature created all the energy observed today?
What is the logical step taken here?
Can energy not have been always available? Even if it did, it still needs an Energy Source, that enegry source is God.
Can't energy be created from the now famous quantum foam? There are few problems for any qauntam mechanism to work.

Quote:There are at least three serious logical problems with this entire line of reasoning:

• Quantum mechanics implicitly assumes the existence of time and space, so how can the laws of quantum mechanics create time and space?
  
• The only way that we know quantum mechanics is (at least approximately) correct is because we can do experiments and make observations to verify its predictions. Even if we accepted at face value the claim that QM allows particles to “pop” into and out of existence, who has ever observed a universe popping into existence?
  
• Point #2 is one of the big logical problems with the claim that the laws of physics can explain the creation of the universe. These laws have only been observed to be applicable within our universe. We thus have zero justification for believing that they would apply “outside” the universe.
  

In classical physics, particles and waves are distinct things. However, quantum mechanics posits that waves have a particle nature, and particles have a wave nature. This wave-particle duality is very different from classical physics. Another difference is that, in classical mechanics, energy can have any value, but in quantum mechanics, the energy of certain systems must have values limited by the indivisible unit of energy called a “quantum.” This is why we call the physics of small systems “quantum mechanics.”

In 1913 the Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885–1962) published his model of the hydrogen atom that made use of these early postulates of quantum mechanics. By the 1920s a consistent set of principles of quantum mechanics had emerged.
quantum mechanics just do not feel right. They go against our intuition of how the physical world works. However, the problem is that very small particles, such as electrons, do not behave the same way that objects in our everyday experience do. The principles of quantum mechanics are necessary to explain small things, such as electrons, because our everyday understanding of the world fails to explain them. The peculiarities of quantum mechanics disappear as we apply quantum mechanics to larger systems.

Another “problem” that some people have with quantum mechanics is that this theory suggests a fundamental uncertainty in nature. In classical physics, if we know where particles are and how they are moving at any given time, we can (in principle) calculate where they will be and how they will move at any other time.

In quantum mechanics, however, even if we had complete knowledge of particles’ positions and velocities, we could not definitely predict their future positions and velocities. This uncertainty is not merely the result of ignorance of vital information but is a fundamental uncertainty so that future outcomes could not be computed (with certainty) even if we knew everything about the present. This suggests to some people that even God Himself could not know future outcomes, which would violate God’s omniscience. However, such a notion presupposes that God predicts the future only by computing it based on the present, rather than God knowing the future because He is beyond time.

In any case, classical mechanics had created its own challenges to God’s role in the universe. In classical physics, all outcomes were predetermined by earlier conditions. That is, if we knew the positions and velocities of particles in the past, then using the laws of physics, we can predict with infinite precision where all particles will be in the future. This led to determinism, the belief that God does not interfere with the world to change these outcomes. Of course, most Christians readily saw the folly of determinism—God can intervene anyway He pleases because He is God.

In like manner, our inability to make predictions at the atomic level does not mean God cannot know or control the outcome. The important point is that just as classical mechanics does a good job in describing the macroscopic world, quantum mechanics does a good job in describing the microscopic world. We should not expect any more from a theory of physics. Consequently, most physicists who believe in creation have no problem with quantum mechanics.
https://answersingenesis.org/physics/weird-physics/

...
Who knows how many other possible processes can be thought of to bring about energy, without having to rely on something "beyond nature"...

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

• We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
  
• Nothing exists prior to itself.
  
• Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
  
• Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

Again, I bolded the bit I'm addressing.
Why?
Nothing you said before leads to this conclusion that there would be no things existing now, if one could trace back causes ad infinitum.
Here, you may argue with the second law of thermodynamics, but I'd point out the singularity nature of the Big Bang which may (for all we know) reset such law. 

Quote:Big bang = The Modern Big Lie

Since the late 1960s one of the more vocal critics of standard cosmology has been Halton “Chip” Arp. In two popular-level books, Arp has laid out many of his objections. Much of his work concerns quasars. The first quasars were point radio sources identified in 1961. They appeared to be faint blue stars with a few unidentified emission lines. In 1963 Martin Schmidt showed that the spectral lines in one of these “radio stars” were hydrogen emission lines normally found in the UV part of the spectrum. To be seen in the visible part of the spectrum, the spectral lines would have to be shifted by 17%. This is a huge redshift, which meant that if the redshift was cosmological, the object had to be more than a billion light years away. The observed brightness meant that the radio star had to be far brighter than a typical bright galaxy.
Quasar
At the same time, archival measurements of the brightness variations of the radio star over many years showed that the light irregularly varied over a time of only a few months. This was interpreted to mean that the object was at most only a few light months (the distance that light travels in a month) in size. This is required because any variation in brightness must be caused by some mechanism. There must be some “switch” that tells the material in the quasar to get brighter and then to get fainter. A signal must transmit this information. For a small object, such a signal can pass throughout the object virtually instantaneously. However, for a large object there will be some delay in transmitting this signal. The length of time for signal propagation, and hence the period of variability, is limited by the speed of the signal and the size of the object. The fastest known speed of propagation is the speed of light. If an object takes a month to vary in brightness, then it can be no more than a light month in size. This is an upper limit—the actual size is probably less.
Simply put, this radio star must be extremely bright and small. How can something be so small and yet so powerful? The new name, quasi-stellar object (QSO), was coined and that name was eventually contracted to “quasar.”
Over the ensuing years many more quasars were discovered (there are now over 20,000 known), and naturally much more data has been collected. For instance, the first quasars were radio noisy, that is, they gave off much energy in the radio part of the spectrum. However, many quasars that give off little or no radio emission are now known. They are called radio quiet. Quasars have been found with various redshifts, but all quasar redshifts are very high. Assuming that the Hubble relation is valid, their high redshifts suggest that quasars are at huge distances. Many quasars appear to have fuzzy glows around them, which astronomers think are the light of galaxies that host QSO’s.
The picture that has emerged is that quasars are the cores of galaxies. Indeed, the cores of many galaxies without attendant quasars are found to exhibit quasar-like properties. A theory has been developed to explain how quasars can be so small and yet so powerful. We think that a quasar is a massive black hole containing millions of solar masses of material that is accreting matter from an orbiting disk. As the material descends into the steep gravitational potential well of the black hole, a huge amount of energy is released. Similar theories have been developed to explain somewhat less exotic goings on in galactic nuclei. In recent years observations made with the Hubble Space Telescope have revealed strong evidence for massive black holes in nearby galaxies.
In summation, astronomers generally think that quasars are extremely distant, bright, small objects. The only theory we know that can explain the properties of quasars is that they are powered by super massive black holes. Arp has called this entire picture of quasars into question. He has suggested that quasar redshifts are not cosmological, and hence quasars are not that far away, and they are not that intrinsically bright. If this is true, then there is no great mystery about what is powering quasars. Arp is doing no less or more than doubting the principle that redshifts are cosmological. How has he done this? He has offered several lines of evidence, which we will now discuss.
Arp has taken photographs of several galaxies that appear to be interacting with other galaxies or with quasars. One of the best examples is NGC 4319, which appears to have a luminous bridge between itself and a nearby galaxy. Arp argues that the luminous bridge is material that is streaming from one galaxy to the other. To do so, the two galaxies must be at about the same distance from us. However, when the redshifts of the two galaxies are measured, they are very different, suggesting (via the Hubble relation) that the two galaxies lie at vastly different distances. If this is true, then the two galaxies cannot be interacting as suggested by the photographs. How have Arp’s critics responded to this? They counter that the luminous bridge is an artifact or an illusion. The question really comes down to whether you believe what the redshifts tell us or if you believe what the images seem to tell us.

Image courtesy of NASA

One of the best examples of galactical interaction is NGC 4319, which appears to have a luminous bridge between itself and Markarian 205.

Arp has found other galaxies and/or quasars that show what appear to be arms of material from one object to the other. In some cases these arms are bent at peculiar angles that suggest a gravitational interaction between the objects. In every case the objects have radically different redshifts that would mean that the objects have very different distances if the redshifts are cosmological. Arp’s critics respond that while these crooked arms of material are real, the objects in question are chance alignments. That is, the two objects appear to be interacting, because they lie in exactly the same direction, and one of the objects has a peculiar arm that appears to terminate on the other object. Arp counters by asking what is the probability for such chance alignments. These probabilities will be briefly discussed presently.
Another line of evidence that Arp has pursued is the alignment of quasars around nearby galaxies. He has found examples of nearby galaxies that have quasars clumped about them. If quasars are at fantastic distances, then they should be randomly distributed on the sky with some average density. In the cases where quasars are clumped around galaxies, the quasar density in the vicinity of the galaxies exceeds the average quasar density by orders of magnitude. Arp concludes that such density enhancements that just happen to line up with foreground galaxies are extremely unlikely. He thinks that it is more reasonable to conclude that the quasars in question are physically related to the galaxy around which they clump, and hence are not at huge distances.
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/c...cosmology/

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

• We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
  
• Assume that every being is a contingent being.
  
• For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
  
• Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
  
• Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
  
• Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
  
• Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
  
• We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
  
• Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
  

Quote:Again, my bold is what I'm addressing.
Why did you go from "being", which I assume to be a somewhat conscious entity, to "things", which I assume to be any sort of inanimate matter or energy?
[EDIT this part... I had missed the first line, for some reason]
Things, at their core, are not seen to come into and out of existence.
Remember Lavoisier? "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."

See above

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
  

Quote:No. This is plain wrong.
The reference is arbitrary and usually placed at some neutral point, for simplicity.
"Good", furthermore, is an objective concept - that which is good for someone will not be good for others. Eg.: war - what is good for one side (winning) is not good for the other (because they lose).
One may argue for a "greater good", but that will still require some to be left at a not so good position.

Where do objective morals come from?

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• Most natural things lack knowledge.  
  
• But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
  
• Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
  

Talk about reaching around for far-fetched comparisons...
I see no guidance, no forethought, no intelligence in the working of natural things. Natural things just work as they work... mindlessly...

I can even go further, the archer shoots the arrow, by signaling the arms to behave in a certain way. These signals are originating in the brain. The brain is a complex criss-crossing of neurological paths seemingly producing thoughts and orders to the body. The neurons are all very similar and simply conduct electrical signals, using very determined and natural processes.
So... natural processes define how the bowman thinks and how he decides to shoot the arrow. No intelligence required to shoot an arrow.... just some biochemical processes.

Section I: What Makes Us Human? 
To answer the question “What makes us human?” requires that we get clear about two things first. The first is that it would be a mistake to blindly accept what we are being told about human beings—what they are, and what makes them what they are—in the name of science. Why would that be a mistake? Dr Jonathan Sarfati put the answer as follows: 

Source:https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/what-is-life/what-makes-us-human-and-why-it-is-not-the-brain-souls/

For a moment, I thought you'd typed all that....
Then I saw the end "source"...

Oh brother....
Also, your quoting skillz are atrocious!

pocaracas Wrote:Can energy not have been always available?

joker Wrote:Even if it did, it still needs an Energy Source, that enegry source is God.

The very first thing you say is just not logical.
Did you not read what I wrote?
If energy has always been available, then there's no need for a source.


- Considering the high intellectual level displayed in that one sentence and the recourse to "answersingenesis", I decline to go on with this fool.
Have fun poeing.

(November 24, 2016 at 10:30 am)The Joker Wrote: So conclusion, God does exist.

So conclusion, God is indigestion brought on by eating mushrooms.

Yay, making up shit is way easier than actual discussion!

Just more examples of trying to talk God into existence. Funny how God is the only concept that gets this special treatment. No one posts reams of text trying to convince us that trees or ducks are real, and for good reason - with a bit of looking, we can find a tree or a duck. Furthermore, no one of even moderate intelligence looks at our find and argues that it is not a tree or a duck. Everyone agrees on the definitions of 'tree' and 'duck'.

None of this can be said for the God concept. 'Proofs' for the existence of God rely on the specific 'prover' defining God (definitions which have frequently been problematic enough to start wars), and then using less-than-impressive rhetoric to sort of back into the definition.

Colour me unconvinced.

Boru

(November 24, 2016 at 9:13 am)The Joker Wrote: So you lack intelligence then?

If I did, I'd be convinced that the five ways were valid.

(November 24, 2016 at 11:52 am)Tonus Wrote:

(November 24, 2016 at 9:13 am)The Joker Wrote: So you lack intelligence then?

If I did, I'd be convinced that the five ways were valid.

Slammer.

Boru

(November 24, 2016 at 5:43 am)Mathilda Wrote: The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
  
• The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
  
• A maximum is a limit of a particular value.
  
• Therefore something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection which we call God cannot exist because it would be limited by having a maximum.
  

This reminds me of the paradox of God and his really heavy rock. But is God being constrained by our limits a problem? It always made sense to me that God would have to abide by our universe's laws if he were to act within it. But that doesn't mean he can't exist outside of our time and space and do things against the laws of our reality, since they won't apply outside of it. Him being constrained by our logic would actually be him willingly constraining himself by operating within our limits . Does that make sense?

(November 24, 2016 at 8:43 am)The Joker Wrote: So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

The First Way: Argument from Motion
1 Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
2 Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
3 Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
4 Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
5 Therefore nothing can move itself.
6 Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
7 The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
8 One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
9 Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
10 The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
11 Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.

*replaced bullets with numbers*

Premises 1-6 state that an unmoved mover or motionless motion are contradictions. They also correlate to the conservation of momentum and energy.
Premise 9 is not logical since it contradicts Premise 8, which is based off of the first 6 premises. It is in premise 9 where the entire argument caves in on itself.
Premise 10 makes an assertion that there is a supernatural creator. Is this sleight of hand, or was I supposed to believe it existed before even reading this argument? At any rate; the argument has already contradicted itself, so the remaining premises and conclusion don't have much meaning.
Premise 11 makes yet another assertion and concludes that there must be an unmoved mover, which is the second contradiction of the first 6 premises, and fills in the blank with a non-sequitur (a specific god - the one you believe in, no less - how funny is that?).

I will argue that and act of motion requires temporal succession ("the flow of time") in order to do any work. Your unmoved mover did cause the flow of time, right? If so, how did it perform that action without the availability of time?

(November 24, 2016 at 12:20 pm)Aegon Wrote: This reminds me of the paradox of God and his really heavy rock. But is God being constrained by our limits a problem? It always made sense to me that God would have to abide by our universe's laws if he were to act within it. But that doesn't mean he can't exist outside of our time and space and do things against the laws of our reality, since they won't apply outside of it. Him being constrained by our logic would actually be him willingly constraining himself by operating within our limits . Does that make sense?

Or you can think of it, if he can act within this universe then he has to use existing mechanisms in order to do so. So when people pray to be heal their stomach bug, how is God not only sensing the contents of someone's stomach, including all the harmful gut bacteria, transmitting that information off outside the universe and then manipulating your stomach to make you feel better? And how come physicists have never ever measured any of physical mechanism that could allow this to happen?