Creationism

[Belacqua]

You call it an assertion, I call it a conclusion. 

Please tell us the reasons you reached this conclusion.

The perceived motivation of the person making the argument is not a reason to call the argument flawed. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Even badly motivated people may make logical arguments which are sound and valid. 

The argument states that everything contingent depends for its existence on the existence of something else. For anything at all to exist, there must be existence. Therefore existence itself is not contingent on anything else. Therefore existence itself is the first cause. 

The parts that are specific to a given religion require additional arguments, and are not included in the first cause argument, so please show the logical flaw you perceive in only the argument as stated.

[brewer]

You call it an assertion, I call it a conclusion. 

Please tell us the reasons you reached this conclusion.

The perceived motivation of the person making the argument is not a reason to call the argument flawed. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Even badly motivated people may make logical arguments which are sound and valid. 

The argument states that everything contingent depends for its existence on the existence of something else. For anything at all to exist, there must be existence. Therefore existence itself is not contingent on anything else. Therefore existence itself is the first cause. 

The parts that are specific to a given religion require additional arguments, and are not included in the first cause argument, so please show the logical flaw you perceive in only the argument as stated.

Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

[Belacqua]

Please tell us the reasons you reached this conclusion.

The perceived motivation of the person making the argument is not a reason to call the argument flawed. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Even badly motivated people may make logical arguments which are sound and valid. 

The argument states that everything contingent depends for its existence on the existence of something else. For anything at all to exist, there must be existence. Therefore existence itself is not contingent on anything else. Therefore existence itself is the first cause. 

The parts that are specific to a given religion require additional arguments, and are not included in the first cause argument, so please show the logical flaw you perceive in only the argument as stated.

Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

Thomas made the case that one thing has to be logically prior to all contingent things. He says that the word for this non-contingent thing is God. 

But as I've already said, any other statement about God is not included in that argument. 

So you're objecting to things that aren't in the argument. 

If you'd like to use a different term than God, you could just leave it at "First Cause." This is all the argument attempts to prove. It's perfectly plausible that a person could accept the first cause argument and reject everything else that Christians say about God. 

So, to repeat the question, what is there in the argument itself which you conclude is flawed?

[GrandizerII]

Please tell us the reasons you reached this conclusion.

The perceived motivation of the person making the argument is not a reason to call the argument flawed. That would be an ad hominem fallacy. Even badly motivated people may make logical arguments which are sound and valid. 

The argument states that everything contingent depends for its existence on the existence of something else. For anything at all to exist, there must be existence. Therefore existence itself is not contingent on anything else. Therefore existence itself is the first cause. 

The parts that are specific to a given religion require additional arguments, and are not included in the first cause argument, so please show the logical flaw you perceive in only the argument as stated.

Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

Using the word "insert" isn't fair here. Aquinas' arguments lead to the conclusion that the ground of existence exists, and he believed that is equivalent to the God that he believed in. But he didn't shoehorn God in, it's concluded, not asserted.

[brewer]

Flawed because he inserted god into the argument where a god was not needed for the premise to be understood. He inserted god because he had an agenda to attempt to justify the existence of god to the non religious.

A justification for believers was not necessary. (I think good ol Tom indicated this himself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic...rarguments

Or are you saying that Thomas did not insert god as the contingent/cause?

Thomas made the case that one thing has to be logically prior to all contingent things. He says that the word for this non-contingent thing is God. 

But as I've already said, any other statement about God is not included in that argument. 

So you're objecting to things that aren't in the argument. 

If you'd like to use a different term than God, you could just leave it at "First Cause." This is all the argument attempts to prove. It's perfectly plausible that a person could accept the first cause argument and reject everything else that Christians say about God. 

So, to repeat the question, what is there in the argument itself which you conclude is flawed?

He inserted God (capital G). Don't even try to say that this was not the religious God, the God of his religion that made him a saint.

Asserting anything else is foolish and lacks honesty.

[Belacqua]

Thomas made the case that one thing has to be logically prior to all contingent things. He says that the word for this non-contingent thing is God. 

But as I've already said, any other statement about God is not included in that argument. 

So you're objecting to things that aren't in the argument. 

If you'd like to use a different term than God, you could just leave it at "First Cause." This is all the argument attempts to prove. It's perfectly plausible that a person could accept the first cause argument and reject everything else that Christians say about God. 

So, to repeat the question, what is there in the argument itself which you conclude is flawed?

He inserted God (capital G). Don't even try to say that this was not the religious God, the God of his religion that made him a saint.

Asserting anything else is foolish and lacks honesty.

Thomas believed in the Christian God. He knew that the first cause argument was not sufficient to prove anything other than a first cause. Everything else about the Christian God must be argued with different arguments. 

Suppose a non-Christian argued that there must be one non-contingent thing which is essentially prior to all contingent things, and he calls this essential thing "the thing that's essentially prior." But he hates Christianity and rejects the term "God." Would you accept this man's argument that all contingent things exist in contingency to existence itself?

That's what we're talking about.

[brewer]

Using the word "insert" isn't fair here. Aquinas' arguments lead to the conclusion that the ground of existence exists, and he believed that is equivalent to the God that he believed in. But he didn't shoehorn God in, it's concluded, not asserted.

Fair? Aquinas used completion backwards principle. He started out with God, then built an argument for it.

He didn't start out with "what is existence" having no other motivation. If he did, then inserting/asserting/concluding god would not have been needed.

Let's not be intentionally naive.

[Belacqua]

Using the word "insert" isn't fair here. Aquinas' arguments lead to the conclusion that the ground of existence exists, and he believed that is equivalent to the God that he believed in. But he didn't shoehorn God in, it's concluded, not asserted.

Fair? Aquinas used completion backwards principle. He started out with God, then built an argument for it.

He didn't start out with "what is existence" having no other motivation. If he did, then inserting/asserting/concluding god would not have been needed.

Let's not be intentionally naive.

Textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

A logical argument must be judged on the basis of its logic. Disliking the motivation of the man who wrote it says nothing about the argument itself.

[brewer]

Fair? Aquinas used completion backwards principle. He started out with God, then built an argument for it.

He didn't start out with "what is existence" having no other motivation. If he did, then inserting/asserting/concluding god would not have been needed.

Let's not be intentionally naive.

Textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

A logical argument must be judged on the basis of its logic. Disliking the motivation of the man who wrote it says nothing about the argument itself.

You could argue circumstantial ad hom, but circumstantial's are not necessarily fallacious. In this case probably not because he was a member of the church and had an agenda/motivation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

I said he manufactured an argument for the existence of god. Adding god was not logical, making god the first cause without knowing is an argument from ignorance.

I judge his conclusion of "therefore god" only logical within the context of religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

He did think that his argument could prove something other than a first cause. He thought it proved a god. It didn't.

I could hold up a cat and say the magic words "and this we understand to be god" - and there can be no doubt that I've demonstrated the cat, but that still won't make that magic statement true. It's false even on it's own contrived terms. What tom concluded didn't follow, and wasn't actually what he, let alone we, understood to be god at all. He understood god to be christ. There's no escaping this fact of his thoughts or his argument, and it's why his argument isn't the successful argument. He fucked it up. Smart guys make mistakes, and this was just one of his many.