☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[pocaracas]

You know?... I've been on this forum for a few years, now... and I think it' sthe first time I see all these put out like this.

 
So Conclusion, St Thomas Aquinas Argument for God still remains Unrefuted.

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.
  
• The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
  
• One of most basic laws of science is the Law of the Conservation of Energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be changed from one form to another.
  
• Something beyond nature must have created all the energy and matter that is observed today. Present measures of energy are immeasurably enormous, indicating a power source so great that "infinite" is the best word we have to describe it.
  
• The logical conclusion is that our supernatural Creator with infinite power created the universe. There is no energy source capable to originate what we observe today.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God who is existence itself.
  

I'm tempted to apply this to the quantum world, where no motion is the same as a temperature of zero-Kelvin.

I took out your bolding and left the bit I want to address - one question: why?
Why assume that something beyond nature created all the energy observed today?
What is the logical step taken here?
Can energy not have been always available?
Can't energy be created from the now famous quantum foam?
...
Who knows how many other possible processes can be thought of to bring about energy, without having to rely on something "beyond nature"...

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 [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
  
• If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
  
• Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
  
• If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
  
• That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
  
• Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
  
• Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
  

Again, I bolded the bit I'm addressing.
Why?
Nothing you said before leads to this conclusion that there would be no things existing now, if one could trace back causes ad infinitum.
Here, you may argue with the second law of thermodynamics, but I'd point out the singularity nature of the Big Bang which may (for all we know) reset such law.

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.
  

Again, my bold is what I'm addressing.
Why did you go from "being", which I assume to be a somewhat conscious entity, to "things", which I assume to be any sort of inanimate matter or energy?
[EDIT this part... I had missed the first line, for some reason]
Things, at their core, are not seen to come into and out of existence.
Remember Lavoisier? "Nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

• There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
  
• 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.
  
• 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. This is plain wrong.
The reference is arbitrary and usually placed at some neutral point, for simplicity.
"Good", furthermore, is an objective concept - that which is good for someone will not be good for others. Eg.: war - what is good for one side (winning) is not good for the other (because they lose).
One may argue for a "greater good", but that will still require some to be left at a not so good position.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

• We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
  
• 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.
  
• Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
  

Talk about reaching around for far-fetched comparisons...
I see no guidance, no forethought, no intelligence in the working of natural things. Natural things just work as they work... mindlessly...

I can even go further, the archer shoots the arrow, by signaling the arms to behave in a certain way. These signals are originating in the brain. The brain is a complex criss-crossing of neurological paths seemingly producing thoughts and orders to the body. The neurons are all very similar and simply conduct electrical signals, using very determined and natural processes.
So... natural processes define how the bowman thinks and how he decides to shoot the arrow. No intelligence required to shoot an arrow.... just some biochemical processes.