(January 20, 2018 at 1:13 am)Khemikal Wrote: All well and good, but in the context of offering a rebuttal to Thomist theology, it doesn't actually matter whether there was a first mover or not.  One can grant a first mover and it will not necessarrily lead to Thomist theology..because a prime mover is just a prime mover.  You need the special sauce to get to a god, and another helping of even more special sauce to get to the christian god.  

Even thomists ought to know this, since aquinas wasn't the person to come up with the prime mover argument in the first place.  He was collating what he had from classical sources (read: pagan) and seeing if christian theology could be conceptualized in a new and growing field that we would one day call "science" - for him conceptualized as "natural theology".  In effect, he wanted to see if christian superstition could be hammered to fit the mold of pagan philosophy...which he seemed to think was highly informative.  Unfortunately he was more of a copyist than a great thinker...so he added absolutely nothing to the argument itself, leaving it in the state it's been in since it was first uttered.

Sure, one can argue from that as well. Prime Mover could be anything, even something really simple (like a Planck something or whatever).

(January 19, 2018 at 7:00 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: Do you or some other atheist have a good argument for how the First Cause (or Prime Mover) could be something other than God.

I see First Cause as a contradiction in terms.  "Cause" indicates the ability to take an action, but action requires energy; therefore, energy had to exist before the alleged First Cause acted.

"Second Cause" might be the closest you can get to a creator-god.  Creation from nothingness is absurd because creation would require energy, and energy isn't nothingness.

(January 20, 2018 at 3:03 am)Astreja Wrote:

(January 19, 2018 at 7:00 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: Do you or some other atheist have a good argument for how the First Cause (or Prime Mover) could be something other than God.

I see First Cause as a contradiction in terms.  "Cause" indicates the ability to take an action, but action requires energy; therefore, energy had to exist before the alleged First Cause acted.

"Second Cause" might be the closest you can get to a creator-god.  Creation from nothingness is absurd because creation would require energy, and energy isn't nothingness.

Preach it sister!

That's why I view God as preternatural authority and not a supernatural Omni. I mean, if God made nature using nature(energy) then why would He have to exist outside of anything made to be that authority? Can't He be authority within the bounds of His established makings?

I don't make many friends when I say such things--theist or atheist.

Well then. I guess that prime mover is exempt from from the premise.

Everything needs a cause, except god. Gotta leave to apologists to backpedal out of that.

(January 20, 2018 at 3:56 am)Haipule Wrote:

(January 20, 2018 at 3:03 am)Astreja Wrote: I see First Cause as a contradiction in terms.  "Cause" indicates the ability to take an action, but action requires energy; therefore, energy had to exist before the alleged First Cause acted.

"Second Cause" might be the closest you can get to a creator-god.  Creation from nothingness is absurd because creation would require energy, and energy isn't nothingness.

Preach it sister!

That's why I view God as preternatural authority and not a supernatural Omni. I mean, if God made nature using nature(energy) then why would He have to exist outside of anything made to be that authority? Can't He be authority within the bounds of His established makings?

I don't make many friends when I say such things--theist or atheist.

I don't agree with you (especially since I could then ask what the point of God would be in such case), but such conceptions of God make far more logical sense than some entity that happens to be beyond the bounds of existence itself.

FireFromHeaven Wrote:

mh.brewer Wrote:You can't philosophize/argue a god into existence.

You are correct. However you could show that one already existed.

Can you think of another example of something not abstract which philosophy proved to already exist despite there being nothing measurable to observe to confirm it?

(January 20, 2018 at 9:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

FireFromHeaven Wrote:You are correct. However you could show that one already existed.

Can you think of another example of something not abstract which philosophy proved to already exist despite there being nothing measurable to observe to confirm it?

A better way to ask for even one uncontroversial exemplar of something supernatural - before we grant that such a category is warranted.

(January 19, 2018 at 6:39 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: I personally see Thomism, especially as put forward by philosophers like Edward Feser, as the best method of rationally establishing Theism.

The best method in the absence of any evidence because your god does not and cannot exist. If it did, if there was an unequivocal and precise definition as to what a god actually was and reproducible evidence of its existence then no one would even consider Thomism or any other philosophical tricks for magicking a god into existence.

No one would argue about first causes, they'd tell non-believers and sceptics, do X, Y and Z and find out for yourself.

There were two prime movers! Kilibob and Manup.

(January 19, 2018 at 6:39 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: Hello,

I am a devout Catholic with an interest in philosophy. I am posting here in an attempt to find good articles/books/blogs that challenge my personal views. I personally see Thomism, especially as put forward by philosophers like Edward Feser, as the best method of rationally establishing Theism. However, I would like to challenge my personal views and see what others think. Do any of you know of any good replies to the traditional arguments for the existence of God? Especially as argued by Edward Feser in his books and posts such as this (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/...gency.html) ?

Thank you for your time.

Start with Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, it's no philosophy book, but it does very good work on skewering the delusions of grandeur some humans have (especially the religious ones).

---

(January 19, 2018 at 7:41 pm)FireFromHeaven Wrote: I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

For the actual argument, it is basically:

1. Change involves a potential being actualized
2. A potential must be actualized by something already actual
3. Some things do not exist necessarily and require their potential for existence to be actualized
4. If the thing doing this actualizing has potentials, it would also require another actual thing to actualize it
5. Therefore the chain of actualization must conclude in some purely actual thing
6. Since this thing would be  purely actual it would be unchanging and eternal
7. There could only be one such being as there would be no unactualized potentials to differentiate one such being from another
8. Since it caused all non purely actual things it would be omnipotent
9. (EDIT Forgot to include.) Since all non purely actual things, including intelligent beings, came from this Pure Actuality, it would neccessarily be both intelligent, since a cause cannot give something it does not at least possess virtually, and all knowing since the attributes of all things flow from it
10. And that is basically the monotheistic God

This is very bare bones. The article I linked presents an alternative argument that gets to the same conclusion. If you are worried about bugs just Google "Edward Feser Avicenna" and it should be the first to come up.

I'd also like to note that I would prefer direction to good atheist books, articles, or arguments. Debating this in a forum is not ideal but I am open to it if no one has read anything that would work.

That can be slimmed down further:

1) Everything that exists has property X
2) For everything to have property X there must exist a thing without property X to give them that property
3) ...
4) God exists QED.

3) is there to try and get past the fact that 2) violates 1). Every single one of the five ways depends of there a being without the property that Aquinas is adamant exists in every existing thing, which is a non-sequitur, which means that his arguments for god fall flat on their faces.