Apologetics open challenge

[Neo-Scholastic]

At best, you've come up with tentative reasons to be a deist. But you're not a deist. My interest is in how you bridge the chasm between a deist god and your Christian god...
Now that would be a challenge worth exploring, in my opinion. But you'd rather keep it at a level where you can argue the abstract positions of the Schoolmen without sullying yourself with anything that has to do directly with what your faith actually entails.

I have addressed the differences between general and special revelation elsewhere and am happy to do so again on the appropriate threads. At this time, however, I am confining myself to the topic at hand.

[abaris]

Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts.
I’m sure Chad will claim this as a victory, but I have simply no interest in debating people who show absolutely no respect. I already pointed out, as shown above, plenty of problems with the 5 ways which haven’t been addressed. So to make out I’ve ignored it is a lie too.

I’m not interested in anything more Chad has to say about anything. I just wanted to make these events clear to everyone else. Maybe you should read what people write Chad before calling them a cockleper.

Rob, this is the internet and not the real world. Being rude sometimes is part of the deal. I don't say that in defense of Chad or even myself, but it's easier to let lose if you aren't talking face to face.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

---

I just don't take you very seriously. You don't give me any indication that you'll do what we do, and fairly discuss the topic while admitting to what is and isn't good evidence.

I am often haughty, smug, and in general behave like a pompous ass. I think if you look at the actual debate I had with Metis, you will see that I took a completely different tone, more differential and academic. Even if you do not take me seriously because of my personality, not taking the 5W seriously seems to me like an excuse to not actually engage with the ontological claims of Thomism.

Considering that Thomism was embraced by and remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t see how any self-respecting atheist can dismiss the 5W out of hand without properly weighing them against the objections of Descartes, Hume, and their successors.  To uncritically accept those objections represents an appeal to authority.

Why would I want to go through the trouble of engaging with you on a complex subject that will require a lot of effort…

The above notwithstanding, there is no shame deferring to the expertise of others. Not everyone is philosophically inclined and those who are have a wide range of topics on which to speculate.

The only reason I can see for doing the research would be if you wanted to know for yourself whether the 5W are valid rather than rely on the opinions of others. At the same time, I see that many atheists are content to say that all the ontological claims are invalid without doing the heavy lifting of actually demonstrating such.

… have I ever shown an unwillingness to engage on subjects of Biblical claims or claims related to religion, like science and philosophy? The fact that no one wants to engage with you is, to me, quite telling...

In my opinion you do not shy away from opining on various subjects. I have always considered you sincere even when I thought your ideas were flawed. I can only speculate on what you feel the lack of engagement with me reveals.

…for me to say that I'm not willing to engage you on a subject that I think you have too much emotional connection to have an honest conversation about, especially in light of the aggressiveness with which you are trying to manipulate us into that debate, is something you I hope you take a few minutes of your life to ponder.

I tend to adopt the tone of the thread. From the title alone, anyone can see that the OP was a boastful challenge.

Many atheists are willing to say flat-out that all logical demonstrations for the existence of God are flawed and then back away from actually revealing those flaws. When pressed they often say that they are no longer interested, feel doing so is beneath them, or that the 5W are so absurd that they hardly deserve attention. I feel justified in calling them out when they do so.

The premises I use are based on moderate realism and a specific theory of causation. I have indeed taken those criticisms to heart and have recently taken the extra step of supporting the philosophical foundations for the contested premises. That alone has taken a lot of work on my part. As a result, I am now unwilling to let those diversionary objections slide.  I escalated the challenge as a fight for the title, so to speak. I think I deserve a little bit of latitude for the bluster of my pre-smackdown trash talk.

---

I can't remember with whom I had the discussion, but very soon after arriving on this forum I had a long and intense "discussion" (quotation marks indicate irony, here, since they just kept repeating themselves instead of addressing my counter-arguments) with someone about why presuming life exists because the conditions were set up before hand to make life exists, rather than life as we know it being a natural consequence of random (or perhaps not random if, as some cosmologists speculate, this is simply the way particles must interact) settings that comprise the universe. It leaked heavily over from cosmology into abiogenesis, which was fine by me since that's more my turf, but at no point was the person willing to acknowledge that life could even possibly have formed naturally, by "random" (not really random, since it's how the particles always interact, which they didn't realize is a fundamental conclusion of their original argument that the universe must have been designed for life to exist, even as they thought it was magically Created).

I originally discussed Aquinas with friends in Catholic seminary, back when I was in college, since I come from a heavily Catholic part of the country, but they were honest enough to admit that the Five Ways were not proof but supposition with which they simply felt comfortable assuming. When it's presented as "you can't refute this!", right off the bat, it tells me that you're not really willing to have the same sort of respectful conversation about it, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, but have already made up your mind in a way that is impervious to reasoning... so why reason with you?

The haughty, insulting tone I do find annoying, yes, but as you point out that's often par for the course with an internet forum, and I don't truly hold that as a reason not to have discussions, simply that I identify it as an emotional reaction that tells me it's not worth talking about with someone who has such an irrational outlook on something. My advice is that you do the same, with atheists who behave that way. I would.

[Neo-Scholastic]

they were honest enough to admit that the Five Ways were not proof but supposition with which they simply felt comfortable assuming. When it's presented as "you can't refute this!", right off the bat, it tells me that you're not really willing to have the same sort of respectful conversation about it, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of the argument, but have already made up your mind in a way that is impervious to reasoning... so why reason with you?

Your friends did not find the 5W as compelling as me, the late Mortimer J. Adler, Edward Fesser and many others believe(d). You mistake my great confidence in the strength of an argument with ideological commitment. I'm open being proven wrong, but it seems that right now everyone is more concerned about my personality. In the OP robvalue claimed that he would reveal the logical fallacies of any ontological god claim. So my counter challenge of in your words "you can't refute this!" was entirely justified.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just to recap:

RV: Please post any arguments about religion or a general God that you think are valid, and I will analyse them.

CW: I return your challenge with another: a formal debate of the 5 Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

RV: Well, it's chock full of logical fallacies (the 5 ways), and I can point them all out if you want...What else is there to say?... If you don't want to address these points here, and think this is really worth a debate, I'll consider it.

CW: I think a formal debate would best serve to illustrate the robust nature of Thomas Aquinas’s Five Ways…if you decline I will not consider it a sign of weakness or lack of courage, merely a recognition that we all have personal lives...I invite you to select one of the Five Ways and present your best objection to it now.

RV: I'm taking a break from heavy going topics for a few days as I get all obsessed with them sometimes. I'll be back to read the replies here in a while and reply to people.

CW: As for now, my counter-challenge to either formally debate the 5W has been tacitly declined and my offer to defend any of the 5W selected by the skeptics has gone unanswered. Will any skeptics step up to the plate?

RS Meme: “I saw your last post…would you like some cheese to go with your whine.”

CW: I have issued my counter-challenge at least three times now. You skeptical cock-lepers have only offered a cute meme… If anyone is serious about fulfilling the empty boast of the OP then you can PM me.

RS: Don't be sad, Chad. I just don't take you very seriously.

RV: I said I'm taking a break, as above. But as you're so incredibly rude, I've lost all interest in interacting with you.

[abaris]

What you fail to notice, Chad, is that this guy, going by many aliases, posted stuff we get every week and already discussed ad nauseum and to top it off, simply copy pasted as if there was tomorrow.

So, there's a difference between just being a dishonest preaching prick and someone being out for a discussion. The mere fact that I'm even adressing this, should give you a hint.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Please spell it out for me. I feel a little clueless.

[robvalue]

Wow. This is a level of rudeness which surprised me, even given what I’m used to reading. Apparently I’m not allowed a few days break, and I’m making empty boasts.
I’m sure Chad will claim this as a victory, but I have simply no interest in debating people who show absolutely no respect. I already pointed out, as shown above, plenty of problems with the 5 ways which haven’t been addressed. So to make out I’ve ignored it is a lie too.

I’m not interested in anything more Chad has to say about anything. I just wanted to make these events clear to everyone else. Maybe you should read what people write Chad before calling them a cockleper.

Rob, this is the internet and not the real world. Being rude sometimes is part of the deal. I don't say that in defense of Chad or even myself, but it's easier to let lose if you aren't talking face to face.

Yes, that's very true. Personally I always try to not say anything that I wouldn't say to someone's face.

I just wanted to show that the accusations Chad was throwing my way were unfounded. He also happened (not for the first time) to make it clear he has zero respect for me. That's fine, he can continue to do so from my block list. I'm not suggesting he be censored or anything, just that I'm not wasting my time when I have plenty of people who do respect me.

I'll probably finish the job on Aquaman's theory or whatever it's called anyhow in due course.

[ignoramus]

I see what you did there.

Note to self: close the curtains.

Stim, you taught me the hard way that a person's nose can act like a 2 gang espresso maker! Thanks!

[robvalue]

Just to explain, I come here partly to relax and enjoy myself. I don't enjoy talking to people who won't offer me a minimum level of respect.