(September 23, 2015 at 2:26 pm)robvalue Wrote: Oh yeah. The 5 ways is yet another attempt to waltz past the earliest point science can model with everyday naive notions about cause and effect which don't even stand up particularly well in quantum mechanics right now. I can forgive it since it was written a long time ago.
It's no different to the Kalam, it just tries to set up apparent paradoxes and then special pleads something into existence to fix the paradox.
It seems to show a discomfort with an infinite past and an infinite chain of events also, which amounts to an argument from incredulity.
If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.
Forgiving it due to its age is overly generous of you. Philosophers generally have regarded such arguments as bullshit without using very modern science at all. They are fallacious drivel, not worth thinking about. But go ahead and tear into them all you want. I recommend, however, that you leave quantum mechanics out of it, as that will only serve to confuse and muddle matters more than is necessary.
To put that another way, it makes no difference whether quantum mechanics is true or false; either way, the Aquinas arguments are fallacious drivel.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
