Dear Resident Theists

[Neo-Scholastic]

Obj to Obj 1: Every classification above that of a species -family, order, phylum, etc- is at a higher level of order. Does that make them supernatural?

This has become an argument over semantics. We are using the same words, but you’re talking about a difference of degree whereas I’m talking about a difference of kind. Let’s agree to drop it.

Obj to Obj 2: Who said anything about robots? (That does not compute.)

Then substitute a different metaphor like ‘deterministic electrochemical reaction.’ Point stands.
Obj to Obj 3: How come I wasn't informed? Do we actually have a specimen, dead or alive, of a metaphysical first cause? Only 'natural' to associate it with the divine/supernatural? I see what you did there. Just because a thing is funny does not make it true.[/quote] I’m surprised that you would resort to such a cheap diversion. The rhetorical request for a specimen is not germaine to the issue. God would not be a thing like unto other things. For form of inquiry must be tailored to the subject. The means for mathematical knowledge is much different from that of biology. The natural sciences take for granted the things about which philosophy inquires like causality and essential natures.
In the most recent debate with Metis, I presented the case for the 5 ways of Aquinas. He replied with the typical objections presented by most atheists, all of which misrepresented Aquinas or relied on spurious arguments that had no bearing. In another thread, Esquilax opined that he was disappointed with Metis, since as he claimed, disproving them is trivially easy and would be the subject of his blog post. I requested that he PM me the link to his arguments when he is done. In both cases I called their bluff (although perhaps Esquilax has not completed his blog post).
My point is that atheists repeatedly claim that the 5 Ways have been disproven without doing the heavy lifting of actually confronting the arguments head on. One atheist member wrote something like “11th century cleric. Nuf sed.” Last time I looked truth didn’t have an expiration date. The sum of a triangle’s angles was the same in the Year of our Lord 1100 as it is today. These kinds of ignorant comments are not any more legitimate than those based on modern analytic philosophy’s incoherent ideas about causality or the pernicious unreality of nominalism.
My point Whateverist, is that you and everyone else has been informed for about 500 years despite all the rhetorical bluster and philosophical wiggling to escape the firm and compelling conclusions of natural revelation.