Atheism is irrational.

[Edwardo Piet]

Aquinas' arguments are all extremely easy to refute. They're all baseless premises and/or non-sequiturs. They're all either unsound or not even valid.

[Jesster]

Aquinas' arguments are all extremely easy to refute. They're all baseless premises and/or non-sequiturs. They're all either unsound or not even valid.

But he really wants them to be valid. You can't argue with that!

[Pat Mustard]

Gee, if you say so...

I'll let theologian grade the papers for a while. I'll just put ya'll down as more drop-outs of Theology 101.

Why should I care about Theology 101?

The 5 Ways should be evaluated strictly within the purview of logic and philosophy.

Why not open a thread defending the 5 Ways and let us do our best to refute them?

Because Wooters would prefer to stick his fingers in his ears and make believe we've no refutation of his beloved idiot. It's the lazy man's way after all.

[Pat Mustard]

Why not open a thread defending the 5 Ways and let us do our best to refute them?

I'm offering this merely so you have a better understanding of the 5 Ways. If you have any particular objection,  feel free to make them, but just so you know I won't have much time to reply given the up-coming USA holiday. Besides, I'm rather tired of defending the 5W on AF because there are so many misunderstandings about them. The typical objections, like special pleading, only come from those who don't understand the 5W. For quite some time I have been willing to explain the 5W as clearly as possible. I did so only to put my understanding to the test and am satisfied that they stand-up to close scrutiny. YMMV

Official Debate

The above said, I would note that the most compelling arguments IMHO against the 5W came from Hume and Kant. These have some merit  but I personally feel they devolve into paradox. These are rarely if ever presented as refutations by AF members. I don't know why and I don't feel like speculating.

You "won" the debate on a technicality. Just because Metis plagarised someone elses words to refute the five ways doesn't make them any less refuted. You failed to suppoert, much less prove, your assertion in that debate.

And the fact that you point to that debate as an example of the five ways being validated speaks a lot about your mendacity and lack of moral character.

[robvalue]

Haha, you're kidding. He went there? Again? He would have called it proof of Aquaman's 5 ways if his opponent had died half way through.

I actually very nearly debated him, but he just couldn't keep his contempt under control and his utter rudeness put me off. Maybe he should count that as a win too, insulting atheists for Jesus.

We don't really need a formal debate explaining why we should ignore all of science in favour of a "domino rally" which casually goes past the Big Bang; and how it's not special pleading if you really, really don't want it to be.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Arguments from unnamed authorities...insults...bald assertions...straw men...blah...blah...blah.

[Astreja]

Arguments from unnamed authorities...insults...bald assertions...straw men...blah...blah...blah.

And still no empirical evidence for gods, just philosophical wankery and a plethora of logical fallacies.  Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For argument's sake even if you are correct concerning this not being special pleading, Aquinas' 5 ways has many other problems and flaws. Aquinas did not 'demonstrate' anything. He came up with flawed logical argument.

Gee, if you say so...

I'll let theologian grade the papers for a while. I'll just put ya'll down as more drop-outs of Theology 101.

lol, Theology101 ... Isn't that like studying the epistemology of Scooby-Doo?

I've got better uses for my time and money than studying stupid beliefs.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Arguments from unnamed authorities...insults...bald assertions...straw men...blah...blah...blah.

You cannot reason fiction into reality. The world doesn't care about your words. What doesn't exist will not *poof* into existence if you utter the right words in the right order ... your fetish with philosophy notwithstanding.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Arguments from unnamed authorities...insults...bald assertions...straw men...blah...blah...blah.

You cannot reason fiction into reality. The world doesn't care about your words. What doesn't exist will not *poof* into existence if you utter the right words in the right order ... your fetish with philosophy notwithstanding.

...thereby dismissing an entire branch of human inquiry. I suggest you call your local University and advise them to shut down their Philosophy Department. See how they feel about that suggestion.

Here's how the thread has played out thus far:

"Here is my straw man refutation of the 5W."
"Well, even if my refutation doesn't apply someone sometime did so I don't need to."
"Well even if I cannot produce a valid refutation it doesn't matter. All propositions require empirical verification (except this one.)"
"Philosophy is bullshit."