Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Pat Mustard]

Most of us have read and contributed to threads about what evidence would suffice to convince an atheist that God exists. The stand taken by Esquilax against the 5W and his reasons for opposing them demonstrates that for many, no form of evidence would ever suffice. He has ruled out beforehand rational reflection as a source for a priori knowledge without realizing that in so doing he has contradicted himself. How does one go about empirically proving that only empirical knowledge is valid? And how can he dismiss a priori knowledge known by rational reflection without using a priori knowledge?

Chad, the fact of the matter is that Aquinas's five "proofs" are absolutely horrid. When three of his five arguments are self contradictory as follows: "Everything that exists must have a creator. Thus some thing must exist which didn't have a creator. god exists. QED" (Unmoved mover, First cause and Contingency), a fourth is a bald conversion of Aquinas' opinion into truth thusly: "I believe a being perfect in every way exists, therefore there exists a being perfect in every way. God exists QED" (Degrees of perfection), and the final one basically boils down to "I don't know how lightning works, or how babies are made. Therefore god must exist", you know, if you've any brain cells active in that vast empty space between your ears that you're on a hiding to nothing.

Chad, your exemplar is so rotten that not alone does he have feet of clay, but a brain of a dead goldfish. He has not proven god, he has not even presented any argument to allow for the possibility of god.