Arguments for God from a purely philosophical perspective

[robvalue]

The biggest problem is that of definition. "God" is such a lazy, vague term that it can mean almost anything. Even a purely philosophical argument has to give some meaning to its terms if it's to be of any use.

Aquinas (Aquaman) provides several totally flawed arguments, I dissected it before, let me go paste it in. My ramblings are in bold.

I've just highlighted some of the logical fallacies, enough to show these simply don't work. There's plenty more inherently wrong with the arguments as well that I needn't bother highlighting. I think this should put it to bed, anyone else is welcome to discuss.

My analysis of Aquinas 5 ways (5 ways taken from here)

General objection: Completely dishonest use of the label "god" in not just one but all five ways. This is clearly to try and sneak in an intelligence in the cases where none has been demonstrated; and also to assume all these five things are the same thing. Completely unjustified.

The First Way: Argument from Motion

---

Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

Therefore nothing can move itself.

Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. Criteria.

The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite sequence.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

Special pleading. This violates the above criteria.

---

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

---

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

Nothing exists prior to itself.

Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

Argument from incredulity. There's nothing inconsistent about an infinite chain of causes going into the past.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

---

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

---

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

Assume that every being is a contingent being.

For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

If I pretend the above argument makes sense, all that has been shown is that some "beings", whatever that means, have always existed. It's not been narrowed down to just one being, nor has it been shown there are any contingent beings to be "brought into existence", whatever that means. If bringing into existence simply means some things forming into other things, rather than appearing out of nowhere, then I'd hardly call this being contingent or coming into existence.

---

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

---

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

This is meaningless. Better or worse in what way? Who gets to decide?

Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

Non sequitur. Even pretending the initial premise makes sense, this is just announcing a conclusion.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

No. Even if both of the above made sense, it's not been shown that one thing happens to be the maximum in every category.

---

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

---

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

A "goal" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Stating it's not happening "by chance" is an argument from incredulity, if not just a flat out unsupported assertion. There's a difference between chance and natural processes, too.

Most natural things lack knowledge.  

But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

Things without intelligence don't have their own goals, they are arbitrarily and subjectively assigned goals by intelligences.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

Doesn't follow or even make sense. This is just fantasy, and labeling whatever happens as part of some "end".

---