RE: Debate Challenge
November 19, 2015 at 10:25 am
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2015 at 10:44 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Just to add to the pile of "failure"...in addressing the arguments offered by Aquinas...lol.
1. The unmoved mover. It relies on the conjecture that infinite regress is impossible, and in that regard, it doesn't really matter if it makes a special pleading case (after all, god is supposed to be special). Infinite regress, itself, is not impossible, infinite regress makes it impossible for logical operations to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Just because the tool doesn't work for the task at hand, doesn't mean that there is no task at hand. Just because logic would be incapable of providing a satisfactory answer in the case of infinite regress, does not mean that infinite regress itself is impossible.
2. First cause. Again, as above, the special pleading is secondary to the assumption that an infinite regress of cause is impossible. What would be impossible, as above, is a satisfactory answer using logical operations...not, as above, an infinite regress of cause.
3. Contingency. Yet....again......this argument implies that an infinite regress of cause is impossible, and yet again it fails because of this...if for no other reason.
4. From Degree. This one, to me, is almost inexplicable. It's not a logical argument at all. The notion that because someone holds a set of value judgments, there must be a perfect example of their value judgement set, and that further this perfect example of their value judgement set is a god is a complete non-sequitur at every single step. I have an idea of the perfect american, but this doesn't mean that the perfect american exists, or that if the perfect american -did- exist, it would be a god.
5. Teleological argument. This one.....this one is flat out ignorant but I can actually see where Aquinas was coming from. What other way did he have to explain what he saw as order or design in the universe or in life? It's not as though he had physics or biology to refer to.......but we do, now.....so what are we talking about again, today?
In summary, it looks like your boy, Woot, was fluffing his manuscript, firstly. He doesn't actually have five ways, he has 3, 1-3 are the same argument. 4 is a full on retard moment....and 5 is forgivable ignorance, for him...but not us. Aquinas appears to have been a sincere man, earnestly searching for some logical explanation of the god he believed in, but...unfortunately, he also seems to have been a bit iffy on the mechanics of logic...and he could not have known what would take hundreds of years of development and research beyond his own lifetime /w regards to the natural world and it's processes.
This, to your mind...validates your worldview? I don't know what to say, other than to suggest you up your standards of validation. This, in your estimation, is the sort of wisdom that takes a significant investment in time to unpack, understand, or assess....it doesn't seem so from here, but I guess we all unpack, understand, and assess at our own paces? If you would like to maintain that you have some status, relative to the rest of us (and particularly in comparison to an atheist, for whatever reason), as an expert on this sort of wisdom..in what way would that be different from being an expert in ignorance and irrationality?
1. The unmoved mover. It relies on the conjecture that infinite regress is impossible, and in that regard, it doesn't really matter if it makes a special pleading case (after all, god is supposed to be special). Infinite regress, itself, is not impossible, infinite regress makes it impossible for logical operations to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. Just because the tool doesn't work for the task at hand, doesn't mean that there is no task at hand. Just because logic would be incapable of providing a satisfactory answer in the case of infinite regress, does not mean that infinite regress itself is impossible.
2. First cause. Again, as above, the special pleading is secondary to the assumption that an infinite regress of cause is impossible. What would be impossible, as above, is a satisfactory answer using logical operations...not, as above, an infinite regress of cause.
3. Contingency. Yet....again......this argument implies that an infinite regress of cause is impossible, and yet again it fails because of this...if for no other reason.
4. From Degree. This one, to me, is almost inexplicable. It's not a logical argument at all. The notion that because someone holds a set of value judgments, there must be a perfect example of their value judgement set, and that further this perfect example of their value judgement set is a god is a complete non-sequitur at every single step. I have an idea of the perfect american, but this doesn't mean that the perfect american exists, or that if the perfect american -did- exist, it would be a god.
5. Teleological argument. This one.....this one is flat out ignorant but I can actually see where Aquinas was coming from. What other way did he have to explain what he saw as order or design in the universe or in life? It's not as though he had physics or biology to refer to.......but we do, now.....so what are we talking about again, today?
In summary, it looks like your boy, Woot, was fluffing his manuscript, firstly. He doesn't actually have five ways, he has 3, 1-3 are the same argument. 4 is a full on retard moment....and 5 is forgivable ignorance, for him...but not us. Aquinas appears to have been a sincere man, earnestly searching for some logical explanation of the god he believed in, but...unfortunately, he also seems to have been a bit iffy on the mechanics of logic...and he could not have known what would take hundreds of years of development and research beyond his own lifetime /w regards to the natural world and it's processes.
This, to your mind...validates your worldview? I don't know what to say, other than to suggest you up your standards of validation. This, in your estimation, is the sort of wisdom that takes a significant investment in time to unpack, understand, or assess....it doesn't seem so from here, but I guess we all unpack, understand, and assess at our own paces? If you would like to maintain that you have some status, relative to the rest of us (and particularly in comparison to an atheist, for whatever reason), as an expert on this sort of wisdom..in what way would that be different from being an expert in ignorance and irrationality?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
