Waiting for Chad.

(January 11, 2017 at 12:51 pm)Asmodee Wrote: All right, I’m sick to death of hearing about this late Medieval “Five Ways” or “Five Proofs” bullshit.  So it’s time to go through it and tear it apart.

Just another way for theists to believe they have a rational reason to believe the irrational.

I think of it as a cloaking device for irrationality.

Pure rationality is such a will-o-the-wisp for anyone no matter how little self knowledge we may have. It makes me wonder why more theists don't take the tack: "I'll just stick to my brand of irrationality and you stick to yours". Rather than dress this sort of crazy up this way.

(January 11, 2017 at 1:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Waiting for Chad.

Of course he will say that Asmodee does not understand the 5 Ways, so he is arguing against a strawman.

Regarding the OP:
The relevant  error is in thinking that religion has any real interest in Truth.

Persons are not interested in Truth as much as they are interested in advantage.  Any consideration of Truth in a religious context is a conscious or unconscious attempt to gain such an edge.
"It helps if you think of it as a game, Bob."
In the study of economics, ecology and games there is a thing known as a Nash equilibrium  or an equivalent  evolutionarily stable strategy where all players are playing what they believe is their optimal strategy regardless of whether such belief is true (corresponding with reality) or even if it is truly advantageous for them.  Believers consistently espouse positions contrary to evidence and reason.  Their actions often do advance the interests of their religions and themselves.
Religion has two effective purposes:
1) It keeps a community together and pulling in the same direction.
2) It provides resources and a livelihood for a specialized sub population that would otherwise have to work for a living.  We call them clerics.

(January 11, 2017 at 1:35 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Waiting for Chad.

The OP is so awful, it's not even wrong! If he can’t even get the concept of “First Mover” correct, I don’t see any point of debating. He doesn’t even have enough background knowledge to critically evaluate the results of his internet search. Google is not a substitute for knowledge gained through actual study. I have already debated someone arrogant enough to think they could cut-and-paste their way through a debate.

Debate on Five Ways

Actually, I'm rather sick of talking about the 5 Ways too. They speak for themselves. All I can do is show that the most serious objections are faulty. Otherwise, I don’t have time to correct willful ignorance.

(January 11, 2017 at 3:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Of course he [Neo-Scholastic] will say that Asmodee does not understand the 5 Ways, so he is arguing against a strawman.

I wouldn't have to if some of the more educated AF members would do so.

Ah, there he is. Now the entertainment can begin.

I notice how you linked the debate where you "won".

(January 11, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I notice how you linked the debate where you "won".

The only reason I did the debate was to provide a resource to which I could point others. Misunderstandings about the 5 Ways are legion (see OP).

None of the 5 ways actually demonstrate anything.