Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[RobbyPants]

I find that's a myth. Many atheists like to claim to be ex-Christians, but they don't have even the basic rudimentary knowledge of religion and end up attacking strawmen.

Most atheists I know used to be Christian.

Christian claims have never been corroborated. There is no evidence their god exists, and the burden of proof is on them to prove it. Any atheistic strawmen are just red herrings to detract from claims made solely on faith. If a Christian wants to believe their claims... fine, but everyone else has no obligation to let their baseless claims see the light of day.

[Angrboda]

My response to ways 1 through 3:

---

In response to the first three of Aquinas' ways of proving God, I would accept as plausible that there is an unmoved mover, a first cause, and a necessary ground of being. Where I cannot agree with Aquinas is in asserting that these are necessarily God. Each one of the first three ways proves some property that the primordial reality must possess, and then go on to state, "this everyone knows as God." This is asserting that because God can be described by each of these terms, God is necessarily the only entity that can be described thusly. This is simply going too far, as no place has Aquinas shown us that God is the only entity that might possess these attributes. Aquinas never demonstrates that God is the necessary possessor of these attributes, or for that matter that the entity in each case is the same one.

Fundamentally, these three ways address the question "How/Why is there something rather than nothing?" Aquinas' three ways are forming a logical conclusion as to what properties an entity or entities must possess to satisfy that question. My fundamental belief is that we simply don't know enough to answer this question at this time. However, I don't believe God is the only entity that can possibly satisfy these demands. I don't know what actual entity or entities fill this role, but it's premature to conclude that God is the only possible answer.

As a hypothetical, consider the possibility that a primordial type of empty space predates everything. And that universes are given birth from the quantum foam in this primordial space. Is this an unmoved mover? Yes. A first cause? In so much as it is a cause, yes. Does it exist necessarily? By definition, yes. So we see that God isn't necessarily the only answer to these questions. I don't believe this is the answer, but it could be.

Aquinas is simply filling a gap in our knowledge of this or these entities with the one size fits all answer of God. God is simply being used as a gap filler. And He is supremely suited to the role, being infinite and unbounded by any real constraints. God can be inserted almost anywhere to fit as an answer. If God can be fit into the role of a first century rabbi who does magic tricks, he can fit in anywhere. Any answer that satisfies all questions is either one hell of an answer, or it's a cheap gimmick. Is God the hell of an answer, or the cheap gimmick? I don't know. Chad and Aquinas want us to believe He is the hell of an answer, but that's more a leap of faith than a leap of logic. They don't know either.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jor, previously I have explained the phrase ...and this everyone understands to be God." The five ways are nested in a much larger work in which Aquinas attempts to demonstrate the ways in which general revelation confirms special revelation. It isn't fair to say Aquinas has failed simply because he didn't justify every assertion in five paragraphs. At the same Time it won't do for me to just say read further and all will be explained. Currently, I am working to extract and summarize the appropriate passages that preceded and follow the five ways. Until then...

[IATIA]

It isn't fair to say Aquinas has failed simply because he didn't justify every assertion in five paragraphs.

Of course it is. Without justification, it is just made up shit or opinion both of which are useless as any type of evidence or proof. It is much more reasonable to assume the universe came into being and intelligence developed than to assume some magical invisible intelligence just popped up out of nowhere.

[Pizza]

If "intelligence" is all that is need why not an inhuman, impersonal god, Chad? I don't understand why Christians make this leap to personal deity. I see no reason why the first cause couldn't be inhuman and impersonal. Lack of imagination?

[ignoramus]

A] Lack of control.

[Mudhammam]

My response to ways 1 through 3:

Aquinas is simply filling a gap in our knowledge of this or these entities with the one size fits all answer of God. God is simply being used as a gap filler. And He is supremely suited to the role, being infinite and unbounded by any real constraints. God can be inserted almost anywhere to fit as an answer. If God can be fit into the role of a first century rabbi who does magic tricks, he can fit in anywhere. Any answer that satisfies all questions is either one hell of an answer, or it's a cheap gimmick. Is God the hell of an answer, or the cheap gimmick? I don't know. Chad and Aquinas want us to believe He is the hell of an answer, but that's more a leap of faith than a leap of logic. They don't know either.

There is a simple reason why Aquinas' arguments for God are bound to fail in convincing unbelievers. In fact, Aquinas himself gives us this very reason, in Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, chapter 4:

Now, from what has been said it is evident that the teaching of the Christian faith deals with creatures so far as they reflect a certain likeness of God, and so far as error concerning them leads to error about God. And so they are viewed in a different light by that doctrine and by human philosophy. For human philosophy considers them as they are, so that the different parts of philosophy are found to correspond to the different genera of things. The Christian faith, however, does not consider them as such; thus, it regards fire not as fire, but as representing the sublimity of God, and as being directed to Him in any way at all... For this reason, also, the philosopher and the believer consider different matters about creatures. The philosopher considers such things as belong to them by nature—the upward tendency of fire, for example; the believer, only such things as belong to them according as they are related to God—the fact, for instance, that they are created by God, are subject to Him, and so on... For the philosopher takes his argument from the proper causes of things; the believer, from the first cause...Hence again, the two kinds of teaching do not follow the same order. For in the teaching of philosophy, which considers creatures in themselves and leads us from them to the knowledge of God, the first consideration is about creatures; the last, of God. But in the teaching of faith, which considers creatures only in their relation to God, the consideration of God comes first, that of creatures afterwards.

(bold mine)

Clearly, Jorm can find agreement with Chad in the premises but not in the conclusion, for as Aquinas says, each "do not follow the same order." Aquinas and Chad assume God's existence first, then seek to establish it using principles of reason that everyone can agree upon. These are insufficient, however, to demonstrate God's existence, both through induction and deduction. A necessary being, a first cause, and an unmoved mover in no way demand that intellect be located in its substance, and without intellect, there's no justification for calling this being a god any more than there would be for calling other causes "god" simply because they are more universal or extend further in their reach.

[robvalue]

Neither does it demonstrate that it's even the same thing in each "way". It just uses the same label, which is clear sleight of hand.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nestor, you have it mostly right. The point being made is that the 'natural' philosopher feels no need to look deeper than the nature of the things themselves whereas the theologian, motivated by faith, looked for deeper cause. Its a longwinded version of the principle of sufficient reason.

[dyresand]

The problem of faith and personal god everyone has their own idea of god and it differs from person to person but the general idea is there a all
powerful all loving individual is there to take care of their personal needs and there is slight difference between believers even the ideals of people who follow a religion. This is why you see different versions of christianity and they all have that same problem evidence the extreme lack of it.
Some solely believe in a god because they were raised to believe in a god and or indoctrinated into believing and some have personal experiences.
Lets talk about the last one if you are going through terrible things in life that is pretty much yourself making your life better not god.
For other one it's easy to trick a child into believing in god because of their imagination and finally the second one.
Your child doesn't believe in god and you use hell to force them into believing in a god.
For hundreds and thousands of years no one has provided any sort of evidence for the paranormal, angels, demons,.god(s), devil(s), and you know what this ideology of ignorance somehow one way or another keeps on thriving. Even with the extreme lack of evidence people believe it because they are gullible enough to believe this type of horse shit.