Yair.
Fascinating stuff.
I have a few issues with Thomas Aquinas.
Right up front, he's a presuppositional apologist. IE God is simply assumed as a given when this is not the case. To me, that means Aquinas' claims are of only intellectual interest, but interesting just the same.
It is my opinion that God cannot be argued into or out of existence. That so far all claims about god(s) remain unfalsifiable. IE have not yet been demonstrated to be true or false.
The first of Aquinas Five ways/Five proofs" is the teleological/cosmological/ prime cause/ the watchmaker's argument/ Intelligent design/irreducible complexity/god of the gaps.
As far as I'm aware, the first thinker recorded as positing the First Cause argument for the existence of god was Aristotle.
The latest have ben a bunch of sly creationist trying to argue irreducible complexity. I seem to remember evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins shredding that argument.
Th e basic claim has been debunked over centuries. Russell's Teapot is a pretty good place to start. If you're really keen, perhaps have a listen to the 1948 radio debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston SJ.
THE issue is the bald statement that everything must have cause. This claim has not been shown to be absolutely true. It may not be true. I must admit Lawrence Krauss hasn't been much help. Turns out that the physicist's idea of 'nothing' is different from the philosopher's understanding, as far as I can tell. What I'm left with is that the claim 'everything has a cause' is presently unfalsifiable. Consequently, I'm unable to accept that claim.
This is heady stuff for me. I welcome correction of factual errors.
Fascinating stuff.
I have a few issues with Thomas Aquinas.
Right up front, he's a presuppositional apologist. IE God is simply assumed as a given when this is not the case. To me, that means Aquinas' claims are of only intellectual interest, but interesting just the same.
It is my opinion that God cannot be argued into or out of existence. That so far all claims about god(s) remain unfalsifiable. IE have not yet been demonstrated to be true or false.
The first of Aquinas Five ways/Five proofs" is the teleological/cosmological/ prime cause/ the watchmaker's argument/ Intelligent design/irreducible complexity/god of the gaps.
As far as I'm aware, the first thinker recorded as positing the First Cause argument for the existence of god was Aristotle.
The latest have ben a bunch of sly creationist trying to argue irreducible complexity. I seem to remember evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins shredding that argument.
Th e basic claim has been debunked over centuries. Russell's Teapot is a pretty good place to start. If you're really keen, perhaps have a listen to the 1948 radio debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston SJ.
THE issue is the bald statement that everything must have cause. This claim has not been shown to be absolutely true. It may not be true. I must admit Lawrence Krauss hasn't been much help. Turns out that the physicist's idea of 'nothing' is different from the philosopher's understanding, as far as I can tell. What I'm left with is that the claim 'everything has a cause' is presently unfalsifiable. Consequently, I'm unable to accept that claim.
This is heady stuff for me. I welcome correction of factual errors.
