Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[FireFromHeaven]

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

I would argue that philosophy is a good way to argue morality, ethics, law, etc. It is useless as a way to determine the nature of reality. The limitation of the human mind was demonstrated by Galileo when he looked up with a telescope. Since then, science has relied on instrumentation to see beyond what our mammal/ primate senses can perceive.

Ok. I don't think this is a strong argument since we can only understand the results of our experiments and observations with our minds, but it is an argument. Do you know of anyone who develops these ideas at greater length and replies to opposing views?

---

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.

Neither did Thomas...but..and this is important, a prime mover doesn't "refute" atheism -or- establish theism. An atheist is free to posit a prime mover all day ery day, and only a factual and existent theistic god can establish theism.
(as opposed to...say..deism, or animism)

Prime movers emphatically and by definition -do not- rely on theism..which is an exceedingly specific god claim, and the only thing that atheism refers to in the first place.

That "something" started the chain..is not a god claim, or a claim which even has the -ability- to address the point of contention between theism and atheism. Or, put another way, that "something" started the chain does not make that something a god, let alone the christian god..which, again, are elements of fiction.

But I have to ask....if you are a christian, but you don't think that the argument to which you are referring establishes your god claim...why are you a christian, again..and why are you..as a christian, pointing to it as support for your god claim or a "refutation" of atheism?

The brief argument I posted shows why a Prime Mover would be a God. It is very bare bones but what parts do you have a problem with?

I am Christian because I think it is superior to the other Abrahamic religions. However that is besides the point. So long as it can be shown that a monotheistic God exists, the debate is just between different religions and atheism is already excluded from consideration.

[chimp3]

I would argue that philosophy is a good way to argue morality, ethics, law, etc. It is useless as a way to determine the nature of reality. The limitation of the human mind was demonstrated by Galileo when he looked up with a telescope. Since then, science has relied on instrumentation to see beyond what our mammal/ primate senses can perceive.

Ok. I don't think this is a strong argument since we can only understand the results of our experiments and observations with our minds, but it is an argument. Do you know of anyone who develops these ideas at greater length and replies to opposing views?

I never claimed we do not try to understand data with our mind. Philosophy is using the mind alone. Philosophy provides no data to consider other than what humans imagine. Science with instrumentation detects what we can not see. Consider LIGO and the detection of gravity waves.

[FireFromHeaven]

Not necessarily. For example, the argument I made went from an observation about how change worked and gradually abstracted down the line. However, do you know of any in-depth defenses of this line of argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

The brief argument I posted shows why a Prime Mover would be a God. It is very bare bones but what parts do you have a problem with?

It doesn't..and, famously, it only shows that you and Thomas both "called it that" - regardless of whether or not you were accurate in doing so or in your attribution to some specific god..obviously, all the rest is left to hang in the wind...and that's in the larger context of you not being willing to -say- why you call it that.

Can I just cut to the chase?  Magic book, which is demonstrable fiction.

I am Christian because I think it is superior to the other Abrahamic religions. However that is besides the point. So long as it can be shown that a monotheistic God exists, the debate is just between different religions and atheism is already excluded from consideration.

Well, IDK if it's superior to other abrahamic religions, but who cares...that wouldn't make it true.  Maybe "gods" a low rent jewish cunt?

I apologize if this sounds harsh, but them's the breaks with arguments, as opposed to having faith.

[FireFromHeaven]

How can an eternal, unchanging, all powerful, omnipotent being which can be the only one in existence be anything other than God? I genuinely do not understand your position. You seem to grant my argument, including the parts where I show it would have God's attributes, but then try to avoid the conclusion?

[chimp3]

Not necessarily. For example, the argument I made went from an observation about how change worked and gradually abstracted down the line. However, do you know of any in-depth defenses of this line of argument?

I will continue to respond in my own way to your posts. However, I am not your google daddy. Do your own searches.

[The Grand Nudger]

How can an eternal, unchanging, all powerful, omnipotent being which can be the only one in existence be anything other than God? I genuinely do not understand your position. You seem to grant my argument, including the parts where I show it would have God's attributes, but then try to avoid the conclusion?

These are questions that you're going to have to ask yourself..and..particularly, whether or not you might have smuggled a word or two in.  

I can't give you a satisfying answer as to why you've gone off the rails (because I don't know you from adam).  I can only point out that you have, in fact, done so.

(respect, btw, because most of the afflicted would have already peaced out, lol)

[KevinM1]

Cool.  So god is Fluffy, the Cosmic Space Whale who farted the universe into existence.  Fluffy has always existed, and always will.

[FireFromHeaven]

How can an eternal, unchanging, all powerful, omnipotent being which can be the only one in existence be anything other than God? I genuinely do not understand your position. You seem to grant my argument, including the parts where I show it would have God's attributes, but then try to avoid the conclusion?

These are questions that you're going to have to ask yourself..and..particularly, whether or not you might have smuggled a word or two in.  

I cant give you a satisfying answer to why you'v gone off the rails.  I can only point out that you have, in fact, done so.

So you want me to have faith that you are correct?

---

Cool.  So god is Fluffy, the Cosmic Space Whale who farted the universe into existence.  Fluffy has always existed, and always will.

K.

---

Not necessarily. For example, the argument I made went from an observation about how change worked and gradually abstracted down the line. However, do you know of any in-depth defenses of this line of argument?

I will continue to respond in my own way to your posts. However, I am not your google daddy. Do your own searches.

I did google refutations of thomism and found very few arguments. So I have come here to see if actual atheists might, as I said in the original post, point me towards other sources.

[The Grand Nudger]

-adden.  

I can only restate that a "prime mover" does not require the attibutes the faithful insist upon, and that no amount of positing a "first event" that then becomes the antecedent for all subsequent events is tantamount to your..or any, "god".

That much requires "special revelation" - even according to Thomas...which is an deliriously amusing word for "fiction".

@ "Do you want me to have faith"

Yeah, nope. I'm suggesting that you can work it out for yourself. If you like, I "have faith"...in you....