Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Mudhammam]

My response to ways 1 through 3:

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.

There is a simple reason why Aquinas' arguments for God are bound to fail in convincing unbelievers. In fact, Aquinas himself gives us this very reason, in Summa Contra Gentiles, Book II, chapter 4:

Now, from what has been said it is evident that the teaching of the Christian faith deals with creatures so far as they reflect a certain likeness of God, and so far as error concerning them leads to error about God. And so they are viewed in a different light by that doctrine and by human philosophy. For human philosophy considers them as they are, so that the different parts of philosophy are found to correspond to the different genera of things. The Christian faith, however, does not consider them as such; thus, it regards fire not as fire, but as representing the sublimity of God, and as being directed to Him in any way at all... For this reason, also, the philosopher and the believer consider different matters about creatures. The philosopher considers such things as belong to them by nature—the upward tendency of fire, for example; the believer, only such things as belong to them according as they are related to God—the fact, for instance, that they are created by God, are subject to Him, and so on... For the philosopher takes his argument from the proper causes of things; the believer, from the first cause...Hence again, the two kinds of teaching do not follow the same order. For in the teaching of philosophy, which considers creatures in themselves and leads us from them to the knowledge of God, the first consideration is about creatures; the last, of God. But in the teaching of faith, which considers creatures only in their relation to God, the consideration of God comes first, that of creatures afterwards.

(bold mine)

Clearly, Jorm can find agreement with Chad in the premises but not in the conclusion, for as Aquinas says, each "do not follow the same order." Aquinas and Chad assume God's existence first, then seek to establish it using principles of reason that everyone can agree upon. These are insufficient, however, to demonstrate God's existence, both through induction and deduction. A necessary being, a first cause, and an unmoved mover in no way demand that intellect be located in its substance, and without intellect, there's no justification for calling this being a god any more than there would be for calling other causes "god" simply because they are more universal or extend further in their reach.