Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[pocaracas]

The resolution is "The Five Ways of Aquinas have been debunked." Who is willing to show that that assertion is actually true?

It can wait if you want because I realize not everyone has the time for a formal debate. I just want to know who, in principle, thinks they could logically and exhaustively present the proposed objections and defeaters to the 5W that are much talked about.

Tell you what, if a formal debate is too much bother, post your best references on this thread, including YouTube videos, if you must.

I remember once discussing the 5 ways, on some thread, here... I'd never looked at those 5 ways before and, as soon as the other person gave me a link to them, I saw that they were mostly arguments from ignorance... I can't be bothered to go find that thread.
But it's easy enough to find the wiki's article on it:

The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
Summary
In the world we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

Let me rephrase that:
I am ignorant of the Universe. I am ignorant of physics. So I decide to posit an arbitrary start for everything. This start is obviously the super complex thinking non-physical entity known as God.


Current astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics state that everything we see changing has a counterpart. The Universe's total Energy content is zero. And this zero can have always existed.

The Argument of the First Cause
Summary
In the world we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself, because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so therefore there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.

Same as above.

The Argument from Contingency
Summary
In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, given infinite time, this possibility would be realized and nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.

If only he knew about the second law of thermodynamics... he'd have a lot of fun with it!
Sadly, it applies to closed systems of the matter we know.... not to the unknown beyond it.... the part of the Universe that renders its total energy as zero.
From zero you come... .to zero you go.... no change!

The Argument from Degree
Summary
We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, sick animals and healthy animals, and well drawn circles as well as poorly drawn ones. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged. Therefore, there is something which is goodness itself, and this everyone understands to be God.

ooohh.... this one is about psychology. Bred from ignorance of evolution.
That which humans deem good is that which provides them with a survival advantage.
But... that which is good for humans will not necessarily be good for other animals. So goodness itself is relative to the observer. It's not absolute, as this "way" implies.

The Teleological Argument
Summary
We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance, since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves, since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

So... Physical objects have a set behavior that must have been set by some thinking being. Electrons have a particular charge and mass that make them behave in a particular way.... hmmm... actually the generic things mass and charge and energy are what determine how each particle behaves. So it is this behavior of masses and charges that is claimed to be imposed by an outside intelligence.
Why? How?
Actually, we know that mass has an effect on the geometry of space-time... Could space-time, the best candidate at stuff outside our Universe, have been the driver of mass (and energy - E=mc2, remember?) and charge? Could mass be just a particular ripple in space-time? Could it be somehow related to the multi-dimensional superstrings?

So, the truth is, we don't know how stuff in our Universe got to behave the way it does. Nobody knows. [argument from ignorance] Hence god done it!



There you go, ignorance all around. Enjoy!