I'm sick of hearing about the "Five Ways"!

[Asmodee]

Waiting for Chad.

Of course he will say that Asmodee does not understand the 5 Ways, so he is arguing against a strawman.

Waiting for Chad.

The OP is so awful, it's not even wrong! If he can’t even get the concept of “First Mover” correct, I don’t see any point of debating. He doesn’t even have enough background knowledge to critically evaluate the results of his internet search. Google is not a substitute for knowledge gained through actual study. I have already debated someone arrogant enough to think they could cut-and-paste their way through a debate.

Debate on Five Ways

Actually, I'm rather sick of talking about the 5 Ways too. They speak for themselves. All I can do is show that the most serious objections are faulty. Otherwise, I don’t have time to correct willful ignorance.

Of course he [Neo-Scholastic] will say that Asmodee does not understand the 5 Ways, so he is arguing against a strawman.

I wouldn't have to if some of the more educated AF members would do so.

Simon is apparently a prophet.  He called the shit out of that one.

Neo, my apologies.  I forgot all about the "It doesn't say what it says, it says what I say it says" argument.  It never crossed my mind that argument would come up, though it should have given that your avatar is St Aquinas.  The concept seems pretty straight-forward, though there is a little nuance to "movement" meaning instead "any kind of change", but I had gotten that.

Google is not a substitute for knowledge gained through actual study, huh?  Tell me, have you studied homosexual sex acts?  Have you studied the mating habits of crickets?  Have you studied the ways to get matter to temperatures lower than absolute zero?  It is impossible and very expensive for a person to give thorough study to every possible subject, so we tend to stick to only the ones which interest us.  Not giving it thorough study means I am not an expert.  It does not mean I am necessarily completely ignorant.  And I can certainly read what it says.

Do you think you're saying anything new to me here?  Do you think I haven't been in these talks before where the response was, "You don't know about THIS event" followed by, "Well, you've never read THIS book about that event!"  Fool me once and all that.  I AM NOT going to devote a lifetime of study into this stupid shit just so that I can explain what's wrong with it to YOUR satisfaction, which is never going to happen.  There will always be a quote, a book, a class, an event, SOMETHING which I "need to know" in order to understand it.  How many people do you know who "understand it"?  Do all of them buy it?  Because I would be that's your bar for "understanding" in this case.

All philosophical arguments are shit.  This particular "logical argument" was vomited onto parchment a full 600 years before formal logic was even developed.  EVEN IF I were to concede every single point this argument STILL does not lead to your particular God.  The bit at the end is a leap of faith and a serious tell of the bias of the writer.  There is a reason philosophy doesn't develop computers, jet planes or medicines.  It's because philosophy is only the starting point, not the end point, for gaining understanding.  800 years ago it's what they had.  Today we have the scientific method.  Believe it or not there have been PLENTY of studies on the paranormal.  People have just never heard of them because they didn't turn up shit.  Never.  Not once in all of history has magic every been proved real.

So study up on those homosexual sex acts, philosophy you up a time machine and go back in time to express your undying love to St. Dickhead.  The two of you can spend the long nights together, sure and smug in your primitive understanding of reality.  I'll stay right here in reality, where I'm not going to count on magic to help me out and I'm not going to pretend that when I die it's going to be so great that I'm living forever.