☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[The Joker]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

[Pat Mustard]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

Why would I read a book that is a restatement of Aquinas' fourth way with a bit of modern science thrown in to fool the gullible?

We know Aquinas has long been shown to be not even wrong.

[The Joker]

Since you are a fan of science, logic and common sense that I recommend you read this book.    

New proofs for the existence of God by Robert Spitzer, eerdmans publishing.

Why would I read a book that is a restatement of Aquinas' fourth way with a bit of modern science thrown in to fool the gullible?

We know Aquinas has long been shown to be not even wrong.

Of course Aquinas arguments cannot be refuted.

[Astreja]

Of course Aquinas arguments cannot be refuted.

They have been refuted, many times.  They're essentially just unsupported assertions and shaky premises, shoddily glued together at the edges by the desperation of belief.

Aquinas isn't evidence for squat, let alone "proof."

[Aegon]

Why would I read a book that is a restatement of Aquinas' fourth way with a bit of modern science thrown in to fool the gullible?

We know Aquinas has long been shown to be not even wrong.

Of course Aquinas arguments cannot be refuted.

Of course they can. You were discussing the Fourth Way, the argument from degree, yes? Just because we can conceive of an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree does not mean that entity actually exists until we can see or find evidence of such an entity. Gee, that was hard. Next?

[Amarok]

Of course Aquinas arguments cannot be refuted.

Of course they can. You were discussing the Fourth Way, the argument from degree, yes? Just because we can conceive of an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree does not mean that entity actually exists until we can see or find evidence of such an entity. Gee, that was hard. Next?

Not to mention the fact that such a being contradicts all know and observed entities  who are all non maximal

[The Joker]

Who is stopping you? Go ahead, try to debunk each one if you can.

[Astreja]

Who is stopping you? Go ahead, try to debunk each one if you can.

First argument (Argument from motion):  No way of determining if any "first mover" was a sentient being.

Even if you do manage to demonstrate sentience and purpose in a hypothetical "first mover," you then have two more problems:

1. On what grounds are you exempting the hypothetical being from having a "mover" (either sentient or insentient) of its own?  "It was always there" doesn't cut it.
   
2. Given that we are discussing a hypothetical being that supposedly created the matter/energy of this universe, and supposedly from nothing, how did this being perform any actions at all unless energy already existed?
   

The conclusion of the first way also fails due to a non sequitur:

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

"This everyone understands to be God" is an outright lie, as there are quite a few people who do not accept this particular wild, unjustified leap.

Way #1 rejected.

[Amarok]

Who is stopping you? Go ahead, try to debunk each one if you can.

First argument (Argument from motion):  No way of determining if any "first mover" was a sentient being.

Even if you do manage to demonstrate sentience and purpose in a hypothetical "first mover," you then have two more problems:

1. On what grounds are you exempting the hypothetical being from having a "mover" (either sentient or insentient) of its own?  "It was always there" doesn't cut it.
   
2. Given that we are discussing a hypothetical being that supposedly created the matter/energy of this universe, and supposedly from nothing, how did this being perform any actions at all unless energy already existed?
   

The conclusion of the first way also fails due to a non sequitur:

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

"This everyone understands to be God" is an outright lie, as there are quite a few people who do not accept this particular wild, unjustified leap.

Way #1 rejected.

theists will just argue, god magic, somehow then act as if the answered the problem

[Tonus]

Or just Google the term and flip through the numerous sites that deal with the five ways from any number of approaches.

http://www.vorpal.us/2007/10/the-five-wa...dead-ends/
http://www.defenseofreason.com/aquinas-five-ways/
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/aquinas.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...ce-of-god/
http://www.thehouseofhorus.com/2013/06/2...ce-of-god/