Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Angrboda]

My response to ways 1 through 3:

---

In response to the first three of Aquinas' ways of proving God, I would accept as plausible that there is an unmoved mover, a first cause, and a necessary ground of being. Where I cannot agree with Aquinas is in asserting that these are necessarily God. Each one of the first three ways proves some property that the primordial reality must possess, and then go on to state, "this everyone knows as God." This is asserting that because God can be described by each of these terms, God is necessarily the only entity that can be described thusly. This is simply going too far, as no place has Aquinas shown us that God is the only entity that might possess these attributes. Aquinas never demonstrates that God is the necessary possessor of these attributes, or for that matter that the entity in each case is the same one.

Fundamentally, these three ways address the question "How/Why is there something rather than nothing?" Aquinas' three ways are forming a logical conclusion as to what properties an entity or entities must possess to satisfy that question. My fundamental belief is that we simply don't know enough to answer this question at this time. However, I don't believe God is the only entity that can possibly satisfy these demands. I don't know what actual entity or entities fill this role, but it's premature to conclude that God is the only possible answer.

As a hypothetical, consider the possibility that a primordial type of empty space predates everything. And that universes are given birth from the quantum foam in this primordial space. Is this an unmoved mover? Yes. A first cause? In so much as it is a cause, yes. Does it exist necessarily? By definition, yes. So we see that God isn't necessarily the only answer to these questions. I don't believe this is the answer, but it could be.

Aquinas is simply filling a gap in our knowledge of this or these entities with the one size fits all answer of God. God is simply being used as a gap filler. And He is supremely suited to the role, being infinite and unbounded by any real constraints. God can be inserted almost anywhere to fit as an answer. If God can be fit into the role of a first century rabbi who does magic tricks, he can fit in anywhere. Any answer that satisfies all questions is either one hell of an answer, or it's a cheap gimmick. Is God the hell of an answer, or the cheap gimmick? I don't know. Chad and Aquinas want us to believe He is the hell of an answer, but that's more a leap of faith than a leap of logic. They don't know either.