Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[Mister Agenda]

Little Rik is here, so peace out, everyone.

[Faith No More]

No. That's rather the point.

Aquinas' First Way's central premise is that all things that move must have a mover. This can only be demonstrated to hold within the universe, and cannot be shown to apply to the universe itself. If the argument is applied to the universe, as is the implication, it collapses; if it is applied only within the universe itself, it fails to establish that the first mover must be a deity rather than a natural force.

Either way, it fails.

Not to mention there's a nice little sleight of hand there at the end...

5.  Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Even if we accept all of the premises and logic to be valid, it's proven nothing more than something without a cause must exist.  It says nothing about it being an intelligent entity, let alone the specific god "everyone understands" it to be, but ol' Tommy just leaps to the conclusion without hesitation that it must be his pet deity that he's trying to prove exists in the first place and hopes nobody will notice.

And this is the "best" they can do.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No premise in the 1W refers to the universe, does it?

No. That's rather the point.

Aquinas' First Way's central premise is that all things that move must have a mover. This can only be demonstrated to hold within the universe, and cannot be shown to apply to the universe itself. If the argument is applied to the universe, as is the implication, it collapses; if it is applied only within the universe itself, it fails to establish that the first mover must be a deity rather than a natural force.

Either way, it fails.

Have you ever experienced anything that changes that hasn't been caused to change by something else? Probably not. So basically you're objecting to the premise despite the fact that your everyday experience confirms it. Your refutation requires you to deny the evidence of your own senses. Doing so comes at a very high cost and not many are willing to pay the price.

Moreover, your insistence that the premise tacitly refers to the physical universe is simply ignorant. You make the pernicious mistake, made by both theists and atheists alike, of isolating the demonstration from its larger philosophical tradition. FNM goes so far (above) as to isolate it even from the other 5W which is why he missed the reason why the 1W only applies to something intelligent. In context, God is understood to be the ultimate unchanging entity; however, the Scholastics would have recognized nonphysical mathematical objects as unchanging intermediates. The demonstration doesn't mention that because it was assumed that everyone already knew that, which clearly you don't.

[Whateverist]

No. That's rather the point.

Aquinas' First Way's central premise is that all things that move must have a mover. This can only be demonstrated to hold within the universe, and cannot be shown to apply to the universe itself. If the argument is applied to the universe, as is the implication, it collapses; if it is applied only within the universe itself, it fails to establish that the first mover must be a deity rather than a natural force.

Either way, it fails.

Have you ever experienced anything that changes that hasn't been caused to change by something else? Probably not.  So basically you're objecting to the premise despite the fact that your everyday experience confirms it. Your refutation requires you to deny the evidence of your own senses. Doing so comes at a very high cost and not many are willing to pay the price.

Moreover, your insistence that the premise tacitly refers to the physical universe is simply ignorant. You make the pernicious mistake, made by both theists and atheists alike, of isolating the demonstration from its larger philosophical tradition. FNM goes so far (above) as to isolate it even from the other 5W which is why he missed the reason why the 1W only applies to something intelligent. In context, God is understood to be the ultimate unchanging entity; however, the Scholastics would have recognized nonphysical mathematical objects as unchanging intermediates. The demonstration doesn't mention that because it was assumed that everyone already knew that, which clearly you don't.

Possible conclusions to draw based on the premise I've bolded:

1)  Therefore the prior causes go back infinitely.  Implication, there could be no first mover as it too would require a cause;

2)  If the causes do not go back infinitely, then there would need to have been some first causes .. possibly even just one;

3)  It is impossible to know whether the number of first causes is zero, one or many.  It is also impossible to know whether first causes -if they exist at all- are natural processes or agents.  Therefore, based upon contemplation of possible first causes it is possible to deduce absolutely nothing regarding the nature of the universe(s) or its causes.

[Amarok]

Have you ever experienced anything that changes that hasn't been caused to change by something else? Probably not.  So basically you're objecting to the premise despite the fact that your everyday experience confirms it. Your refutation requires you to deny the evidence of your own senses. Doing so comes at a very high cost and not many are willing to pay the price.

Moreover, your insistence that the premise tacitly refers to the physical universe is simply ignorant. You make the pernicious mistake, made by both theists and atheists alike, of isolating the demonstration from its larger philosophical tradition. FNM goes so far (above) as to isolate it even from the other 5W which is why he missed the reason why the 1W only applies to something intelligent. In context, God is understood to be the ultimate unchanging entity; however, the Scholastics would have recognized nonphysical mathematical objects as unchanging intermediates. The demonstration doesn't mention that because it was assumed that everyone already knew that, which clearly you don't.

Possible conclusions to draw based on the premise I've bolded:

1)  Therefore the prior causes go back infinitely.  Implication, there could be no first mover as it too would require a cause;

2)  If the causes do not go back infinitely, then there would need to have been some first causes .. possibly even just one;

3)  It is impossible to know whether the number of first causes is zero, one or many.  It is also impossible to know whether first causes -if they exist at all- are natural processes or agents.  Therefore, based upon contemplation of possible first causes it is possible to deduce absolutely nothing regarding the nature of the universe(s) or its causes.

Not mention these idea's only apply  to our experience of the current universe. It's wholly unfounded to think this has applied forever. There is no reason to assume there is any such thing as a first cause only that there are causes  in the here and now.

[Whateverist]

Possible conclusions to draw based on the premise I've bolded:

1)  Therefore the prior causes go back infinitely.  Implication, there could be no first mover as it too would require a cause;

2)  If the causes do not go back infinitely, then there would need to have been some first causes .. possibly even just one;

3)  It is impossible to know whether the number of first causes is zero, one or many.  It is also impossible to know whether first causes -if they exist at all- are natural processes or agents.  Therefore, based upon contemplation of possible first causes it is possible to deduce absolutely nothing regarding the nature of the universe(s) or its causes.

Not mention these idea's only apply  to our experience of the current universe. It's wholly unfounded to think this has applied forever. There is no reason to assume there is any such thing as a first cause only that there are causes  in the here and now.

Yep, it is therefore a flimsy basis for arguing for what are absurd sounding claims.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Have you ever experienced anything that changes that hasn't been caused to change by something else? Probably not.  So basically you're objecting to the premise despite the fact that your everyday experience confirms it. Your refutation requires you to deny the evidence of your own senses. Doing so comes at a very high cost and not many are willing to pay the price.

---

Moreover, your insistence that the premise tacitly refers to the physical universe is simply ignorant. You make the pernicious mistake, made by both theists and atheists alike, of isolating the demonstration from its larger philosophical tradition. FNM goes so far (above) as to isolate it even from the other 5W which is why he missed the reason why the 1W only applies to something intelligent. In context, God is understood to be the ultimate unchanging entity; however, the Scholastics would have recognized nonphysical mathematical objects as unchanging intermediates. The demonstration doesn't mention that because it was assumed that everyone already knew that, which clearly you don't.

---

Possible conclusions to draw based on the premise I've bolded:

1)  Therefore the prior causes go back infinitely.  Implication, there could be no first mover as it too would require a cause;

2)  If the causes do not go back infinitely, then there would need to have been some first causes .. possibly even just one;

3)  It is impossible to know whether the number of first causes is zero, one or many.  It is also impossible to know whether first causes -if they exist at all- are natural processes or agents.  Therefore, based upon contemplation of possible first causes it is possible to deduce absolutely nothing regarding the nature of the universe(s) or its causes.

You might recall that when I had time to provide proper background on the 5 Ways, I began by distinguishing between accidental and essentially ordered series as it relates to your first suggestion. I suppose we could also have a discussion about actual infinities and infinitesimals. Aquinas deals with your third suggestion by demonstrating God's simplicity in Question 3. As you know we've discussed those ad nauseam. My purpose was not to debate the Five Ways; but rather, to illustrate the difference between evidence and proof. The evidence Aquinas presents is a common observation, a simple fact known from everyday experience. What the evidence means is another issue entirely. On such observations (evidence), he builds a case for the conclusion that God exists. What the 'no evidence' people are trying to do is avoid owning their objections.

[Nonpareil]

Have you ever experienced anything that changes that hasn't been caused to change by something else?

Not within the universe.

Have you ever experienced anything outside the universe that changed because of something else?

Probably not.

Your refutation requires you to deny the evidence of your own senses.

No, Neo. It requires me to identify what evidence I actually have, what I have perceived, what I have not perceived, and what conclusions that actually allows me to draw.

Perceiving things within the universe does not allow us to make conclusions about how things would behave outside the universe. As such, Aquinas' argument is bare assertion at best.

In context, God is understood to be the ultimate unchanging entity; however, the Scholastics would have recognized nonphysical mathematical objects as unchanging intermediates. The demonstration doesn't mention that because it was assumed that everyone already knew that, which clearly you don't.

And this is a coherent objection to the above... how, precisely?

[Jesster]

Aquinas provides an argument, but not evidence. Arguments can use evidence in their premises to support a conclusion, though. Without an evident premise, an argument can be valid, but we cannot consider it sound. Without being both valid and sound, a rational person should not accept the conclusion of the argument. This is the case with Aquinas's argument, since I cannot accept all of the premises used within to be true.

[masterofpuppets]

So, this is a question I must ask.

Why can't the Big Bang be the first cause/prime mover?