Apologetics open challenge

[Minimalist]

Saying "it is obvious" is never a proper justification for something.

I recall in geometry class in high school the teacher was talking about proving congruent angles or something and one guy goes to the blackboard and says "it's obvious."

It was a running joke for the rest of the year.

[robvalue]

Oh yeah. The 5 ways is yet another attempt to waltz past the earliest point science can model with everyday naive notions about cause and effect which don't even stand up particularly well in quantum mechanics right now. I can forgive it since it was written a long time ago.

It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.

It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.

If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.

[Pyrrho]

Saying "it is obvious" is never a proper justification for something.

I recall in geometry class in high school the teacher was talking about proving congruent angles or something and one guy goes to the blackboard and says "it's obvious."

It was a running joke for the rest of the year.

I think that must happen in a lot of geometry classes.

I have an off-topic question for you.  Why is it that you rarely say who it is your are quoting?  (In this specific example, it is me, which makes this an opportune time for me to ask you about this.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want. I'm not sure it's much of a debate. What else is there to say?

And it uses the same label for the "answer" to all 5 arguments without justification. It doesn't show these are all the same thing, even if the arguments were valid.

Well gee! You're more than welcome to reveal the apparent fallacies that you perceive. In the previously mentioned debate I discussed the cumulative identification of the divine roles; although I could most certainly elaborate if you find that insufficient.

[Pyrrho]

Oh yeah. The 5 ways is yet another attempt to waltz past the earliest point science can model with everyday naive notions about cause and effect which don't even stand up particularly well in quantum mechanics right now. I can forgive it since it was written a long time ago.

It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.

It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.

If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.

Forgiving it due to its age is overly generous of you.  Philosophers generally have regarded such arguments as bullshit without using very modern science at all.  They are fallacious drivel, not worth thinking about.  But go ahead and tear into them all you want.  I recommend, however, that you leave quantum mechanics out of it, as that will only serve to confuse and muddle matters more than is necessary.

To put that another way, it makes no difference whether quantum mechanics is true or false; either way, the Aquinas arguments are fallacious drivel.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.... It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.

You are making a very common mistake. Ways 1 thru 3 are really quite different. Kalam-style arguments do not distinguish between accidentally ordered and essentially ordered sequences. Also, Ways 1 thru 3 do not make the artificial distinction between what ‘begins to exist’ and that which may exist eternally.

It is also a common misunderstanding that an eternally existing universe works against the Ways 1 thru 3. It does not. The Thomist argument take no stand as to whether the universe had a beginning or not.

Philosophers generally have regarded such arguments as bullshit without using very modern science at all. They are fallacious drivel, not worth thinking about.

The first sentence is an argument from authority. The second sentence is hand-waving. I invite you to submit, in your own words, the refutations you find compelling.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Robvalue, I think a formal debate would best serve to illustrate the robust nature of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways. Formal debate makes a better point by point comparison. And you will have the freedom to present your claims that somehow modern physics undermines these long-standing logical demonstrations.

The topic is complex. I expect posts to be long, so no word limit. I propose three rounds as follows:

Round 1: Initial arguments, due on 10/2/15
Round 2: Response to Initial arguments, due on 10/9/15
Round 3: Closing Statements, due on 10/16/15

I await your response; however, if you decline I will not consider it a sign of weakness or lack of courage, merely a recognition that we all have personal lives and that not everyone has the inclination to prepare long involved in-depth analysis of these types of issues. I respect your expressed preference for debating within an open thread. If you wish to pursue that route then I invite you to select one of the Five Ways and present your best objection to it now. I am also quite interested to know why you believe Thomism is inconsistent with quantum physics.

[Mystic]

People acknowledge we inherit our actions and it either increases our value or decreases our value.
If our actions our determined by simply how we feel about them, then we are not increased or decreased in value objectively.
An example: A person who doesn't appreciate his good actions that much may still have a higher objective value then he perceives, and others may be closer to appreciating him.
Although we don't know the exact value of our being, we do believe there is a value that is true/objective.
This is only possible with a metaphysical system in which we inherit our actions and this points to a Lord that set up and maintains this reality.
This belief shows most people believe in a Lord of the universe inwardly and metaphysical reality, even, if they don't acknowledge it to themselves or unaware they do believe in a lord and take his effects for granted that point to his lordship.
And this is only possible with objective judgement to our value.
This is only possible with an objective judge to who we are and who sees our value as it is.
People therefore inwardly acknowledge such an objective judge every time they try to come to a judgement of who a person is to their best of their ability.

(There is two argument in this argument, but I thought I would put them together since they rely on the same premises).

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sounds very similar to AQUINAS'S fourth way.

[Minimalist]

I recall in geometry class in high school the teacher was talking about proving congruent angles or something and one guy goes to the blackboard and says "it's obvious."

It was a running joke for the rest of the year.

I think that must happen in a lot of geometry classes.

I have an off-topic question for you.  Why is it that you rarely say who it is your are quoting?  (In this specific example, it is me, which makes this an opportune time for me to ask you about this.)

Beats me.  I rarely use the quote button.  Just pick a line out, copy it, and run with it.

Habit, I suppose.