Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

My source is St. Thomas Aquinas. Go to his Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2. The existence of God, Article 3 at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm.

Ah, this is gonna be fun!

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

Oh, this is gonna bite you in the ass in a bit.

2 Nothing exists prior to itself.

I can already see the groundswell of special pleading...

3 Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

I see an "except" coming in the future...

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

Come on, just say it. Just get to the "except." Don't tease me.

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

We all know it's there. Just say it. Come on. "Except G-"

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

Well, how do you know? You and Aquinas are both assuming there can't be an infinite regress, but how do you logically exclude it? This is just an assertion, with nothing backing it. Logic don't play that game.

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

There it is! The "except!" I was right!

Special pleading at its finest: "Nothing exists without a cause, except for this special thing that I want to exist without a cause. Why? Because I said so!"

First of all, you haven't demonstrated that nothing can exist without a cause, and since you've made a knowledge claim, you have to do that. Secondly, you still clearly believe in things that exist sans cause, since you've called it god; your dishonest presupposition is just tainting your and Aquinas' ability to reason that out. Why couldn't the universe itself just have been this uncaused thing? All you're doing is adding an unnecessary layer of obfuscation by calling it god.

Thirdly, even accepting all of your premises, you still come up short: admitting there must be a first cause doesn't even tell us that this first cause was a conscious entity, let alone your special god that you worship. You've just made an argument for a first cause, and then made a handwaving leap to "and it's MAH GAWD!" You don't get to do that.

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed: I asked you some very real questions in my response to your last post, and your reaction was to ignore me completely and restate your original position, problems and all, only this time adding an argument from authority by bringing in Aquinas.

Turns out, you're both still wrong.

When I say "nothing comes from nothing" I am defining nothing is what rocks dream of: nothing, not particles or energy. Absolutely nothing. Zilch, nil, nada, zero. Only a spirit can pre-exist matter.

I'm going to give you a hard time here so maybe you learn not to make bald assertions anymore: how do you know rocks don't dream?

And as a more serious question: spirits? You've demonstrated this?

By the way, you have not demonstrated that it is impossible for God to exist.

Weaksauce shifting of the burden of proof: we don't need to prove god can't exist, you need to prove that he does. You're the one making an existential claim and, by the way, just what dire straits must your position be in if one of the primary arguments you advance for it is "you can't prove that it isn't true!"

Your arguments sound like "it is impossible for God to exist because God does not exist."

None of us have said that. What we have done, is ask you for proof. Understand, the atheist position isn't generally that god does not exist, but rather that nobody is rationally justified in believing in something without evidence, and that as yet there's no evidence for god. We're asking you to provide it, and then striking down the irrational arguments you use in that process.

But disagreeing with your methods isn't the same as taking an opposite stance to yours. You want to be taken seriously, do better than you currently are.

That is not logical. You are still comparing apples to oranges, because God is not composed of any matter. It is important to define the nature of God so that we are both discussing the same thing.

It is more important to demonstrate the existence of god before defining anything, to make sure you aren't just wasting your time. Can you do that?

Tell me about your idea of the God that doesn't exist. Maybe I don't believe in that either.

It's not our job to do that either. We don't believe in any gods that have no evidence for them. Your mistake is in believing that there must be one god, that that god is yours, and that anyone who disagrees simply doesn't have a good enough concept of your god. But from the outside looking in, as we are, all of these gods look exactly the same.

Present real evidence. Then maybe we'll get somewhere.