Gaps in theistic arguments. Secular theism vs religious theism

[Pizza]

The Fifth Way of Aquinas demonstrates intentionality which is clearly associated with the intellect.

Ants and ant hills, intellect doesn't need to be aware.

---

Give an argument for divine anthropomorphism/anthropotheism for once.

[GrandizerII]

I think the person who is engaged in hand-waving is the person who says, "The past can't be infinite. THAT'S INCONCEIVABLE. It must be an eternal, necessary, non-temporal Something which acts in time."

Who said the past cannot be eternal? The first cause argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the universe always existed or not. That just shows that you don't understand the argument.

In that case, the universe would be the "first cause".

[Pizza]

Who said the past cannot be eternal? The first cause argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the universe always existed or not. That just shows that you don't understand the argument.

In that case, the universe would be the "first cause".

We could go beyond a pantheistic "god" and argue for a panentheistic "god" that is without consciousness.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The Fifth Way of Aquinas demonstrates intentionality which is clearly associated with the intellect.

Ants and ant hills, intellect doesn't need to be aware.

---

Give an argument for divine anthropomorphism/anthropotheism for once.

I kinda think I know what you are suggesting with your reference to ants, but maybe you could spell out more explicitly your point.

---

Who said the past cannot be eternal? The first cause argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the universe always existed or not. That just shows that you don't understand the argument.

In that case, the universe would be the "first cause".

I already dispensed with that inane notion earlier in this thread.

[GrandizerII]

This one?

The universe cannot be a first (or more accurately primary) cause since it is already a particular contingent thing that changes. By way of contrast, the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging.

It could be the case that some stuff pertaining to the universe are unchanging. So the universe is not wholly changing but only partially changing.

[Ravenshire]

the first cause must be non-contingent and unchanging.

That rules out the christer gawd then. That fucker's always changing.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Why did God rest 7 days after moving stuff for the first time? You can interpret 7th day almost anywhere from 6,000-14 billion or so. But what you can't do is explain why an omnipotent anything needed to rest for any period. You can redefine rest to mean something else to, but then you've got to account for that 7th day that has now been stripped of all coherent meaning. I know you don't believe in that biblical nonsense Chad, but what do you say to those ignorant Christians that still read and interpret the actual words of the bible rather than make it up as they go along like your lot?

[Pizza]

Ants and ant hills, intellect doesn't need to be aware.

---

Give an argument for divine anthropomorphism/anthropotheism for once.

I kinda think I know what you are suggesting with your reference to ants, but maybe you could spell out more explicitly your point.

You need to argue which type of final "cause" applies to the which particular case because you can't just throw thunderbolts down from an abstract position.
Psychological causes can't be taken as a given since final cause doesn't only mean psychological. Also a final cause can be an effect of other causes. The only interruption of Neo-Aristotelian final cause that I can understand is as follows: all it means to say, "ants build anthills for the sake of their survival" is to say, "ants frequently build anthills if not stopped from doing so, and the frequent effect/result of this is a higher survival rate." The ants don't have to "think" for this to be so.

[Esquilax]

The Fifth Way of Aquinas demonstrates intentionality which is clearly associated with the intellect.

And by "demonstrate," you mean "asserts."

[Mudhammam]

Who said the past cannot be eternal? The first cause argument doesn't have anything to do with whether the universe always existed or not. That just shows that you don't understand the argument.

There are many different ways to state the argument, not just one. You should know that. They all take the position that events necessarily arranged in a successive order must begin with one that exists unconditionally. The nature of such an unconditioned entity is no more within the grasp of human reason than a succession of causes that has no beginning, which leaves both propositions in limbo as far as speculation---and meaningfully speech---is concerned.