Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[GrandizerII]

If I was not a theist I would be a deist. To me, atheism makes the least logical sense out of all 3.

And I don't mean this as an insult to y'all  (I'm sure y'all feel the same way about what I am).

I just mean it would take some serious, serious faith and dishonesty to myself to believe there exists NO force, not bound by the laws of nature, that could have created the first physical thing to ever have existed.

If the cosmos is eternal, then there need be no such force. Furthermore, depending on the properties you assign to the "force", the "force" may defy logic and so would be very unreasonable to believe in.

---

And among the arguments, I came up with in the past and no one was able to refute:

1. If hypothetical Creator (for sake of argument, we are saying this being is neither good or evil) can create morality from nothing (without it already existing), it can make it what it wants.
2. If it can make what it wants, it can be arbitrary.
3. If it can be arbitrary, then it can make it that it's inherently good to torture innocent souls for eternity.
4. It is impossible that it being inherently good to torture an innocent soul for eternity.
5. Therefore it cannot be arbitrary.
6. Therefore it can't make what it wants.
7. Therefore it can't create morality from nothing.
8. If a Creator can't create morality from nothing, neither can evolution, since it can create evolution or everything created by evolution.
9. Therefore morality is eternal.
10. Morality requires perception.

And you add the premises that will lead to God.... they are not hard....

Terribly weak at logic. No improvement yet.

[bennyboy]

-but what about the eldritch god Ba-Kon?  Mine prostrates herself before it;s effigy with enthusiasm.  She's a polytheist.

The funny (or sad) thing about your inferences about your beagle's beliefs is that yours are at least based on actual observations made in the real world. Your conclusions are suspect, but at least somewhere in the whole process is something real.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Because I specifically and clearly stated that I wasn’t interesting debating external sources. I’m debating you.

Kind of makes debating Aquinas's argument pointless then…If I can't cite sources that debunk Aquinas then you can't cite Aquinas.

That’s the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a long time. If you're talking about what Aquinas wrote then you have to quote Aquinas. Duh. I’m putting this one in the Hall of Shame.

…if all "The Ground of All Being" means is "The first cause that is itself uncaused" then suddenly this 'being' isn't very interesting and it has a fancy name for no good reason. It's very easy to equivocate on the term 'being' and think of a living being, though, since you sure love your equivocations.

If you’re going to “debunk” Aquinas you need to get things straight. The 3W deals with necessary being. It’s the 2W that deals with first cause. 1W in the unmoved mover.

… Aquinas is making unsupported assertions. They are not unsuccessful because I say so, I say they are unsuccessful because they are unsuccessful. If you follow what Aquinas actually says, his arguments don't entail intelligence and perfection and how even could they unless he was starting from an unsound or fallacious premise to begin with?...It's not my job to prove that what Aquinas is saying is fallacious, it's his job to make a non-fallacious argument. The onus is on the person making the argument to make an argument that makes sense. Again, it's not my fault that you can't recognize non-sequiturs.

Bullshit. It is too your job. You’re saying that the 5W have been thoroughly debunked. Debunking means showing that the arguments are fallacious. And yet, you refuse to do the heavy lifting of showing which premise is false or where there is a gap in the logic. How in the world can you claim that the 5W have been “debunked” when you have explicitly stated the Aquinas did indeed prove the existence of the Unchanged Changer, First Cause, and Necessary Being? As for 4W and 5W, you haven’t even tried.

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Apparently your only problem with each demonstration is that it concludes with the phrase “everyone understands this to be God.” Look, if the English word for an immutable, eternal, necessary, perfect, and intelligent agent was “Duck” then I would have to say that I worship Duck.

I can understand why you think Aquinas is slipping in hidden concepts at the end. That at worst is a rhetorical flourish. It invites the reader to ask themselves what else could possibly be the Unchanged Changer (etc.) if not God. He sets the stage for Question 3 where all those connections are made explicit.

Explain how what Aquinas says remotely demonstrates that the uncaused cause is perfect or intelligent. I am not ignoring the arguments, I am seeing the arguments and recognizing that Aquinas is making non-sequiturs and you are ignoring those non-sequiturs.

So as I have said Question 2 ends by presenting 5 phrases, “this everyone understands to be God” which you are calling non-sequitors. If Aquinas had stopped writing then I would agree with you. While it seems intuitively obvious, for many at least, that each of the things proven by the 5W must also have the attributes of the others - meaning, the immutable agent of 1W, the Unchanged Changer, would have the necessity of the agent in the 3W, the Necessary Being, etc. – that alone does not an argument make. The logical demonstrations that prove what is only apparently in Question 2 are presented in Articles 2 thru 7. Since these demonstrations are spread out, I’ve never before put them into my own words. I am not prepared to do so at this time; although I will have to come back to it at some point soon. So I guess if you want to elevate a semantic point to the level of "debunking" I'm not going to stop you. At the same time, that's a far cry from pointing out a faulty premise or break in the chain of logic.

[bennyboy]

Correct. The suffix "-ism" in this case is attached to the word "theism". The prefix "a-" negates it. Hence "not a theist". But obviously that only means I don't believe the things I thought I do, and do believe those I thought I don't. Thanks for you and CL pointing it out to me; I probably would never have known the contents of my mind without you to guide me.

*exits thread

What the hell did I do?? I said "fair enough". Sheesh.

Sometimes that's the reaction you get when you make a simple point simply.

[The Grand Nudger]

-but what about the eldritch god Ba-Kon?  Mine prostrates herself before it;s effigy with enthusiasm.  She's a polytheist.

The funny (or sad) thing about your inferences about your beagle's beliefs is that yours are at least based on actual observations made in the real world.  Your conclusions are suspect, but at least somewhere in the whole process is something real.

You know, if beagles did have god beliefs.....I doubt I could have put it better than Xenophanes.

The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.

OFC, one has to ask...when Easy looks at me, does she see a beagle or a man..and if she ever considers herself, does she take a human form in her mind?

[Angrboda]

Source: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk...thing.html

You just couldn’t resist could you?

He doesn't literally say the words "Therefore God" but that's what he is saying, i.e. that is what he is arguing for…God isn't simply the first cause, God has to at least have an intelligence and be more than simply an uncaused cause, something that Aquinas hasn't argued for…. All Aquinas has done is made an argument for an uncaused cause and labelled that with "God"…. He's not talking about gods at all, he's not even successfuly arguing for a prime mover with a mind or a diest God, let alone a Christian God. He's merely arguing for an uncaused cause, that's it. Merely by asserting "This uncaused cause is God" is a completely bare assertion because it doesn't have the properties of God or the mind of God and it isn't anything like God, it's just an uncaused cause. Literally the only thing it has in common with God is the uncaused cause aspect… If all Aquinas is doing is arguing for the existence of an uncause then he has demonstrated no god at all, not even a deist one. He's demontrated an uncaused cause, at best. And he hasn't even necessarily demonstrated that because he hasn't demonstrated that the universe is necessarily finite.

You have simply taken 1 part out of 5 and saying “Aquinas didn’t argue for that,”, again and again and again, which is simply untrue. Don’t  blame Aquinas just because you cannot be bothered to read the next 4 paragraphs.

In question 1 of the Summa, well before the 5W, Aquinas distinguishes between natural revelation and special revelation. He very explicitly states that natural reasoning cannot take you anywhere near the Christian God. But it does get you, in Question 2, to the God of Classical Theism – full stop – which is as follows:

Immutable (1W)
Eternal (2W)
Ground of Being (3W)
Perfection (4W)
Intelligence (5W)

Taken collectively, I do not see how anyone could not recognize that a Being having all these attributes satisfies the fundamental criteria of God for all three Abrahamic religions, and perhaps even Hinduism. Basically everyone.

Ignoring for the moment your rather generous characterizations of what each way concludes, the problem with this, Neo, as I've pointed out to you in the past is that the five ways are all logically independent demonstrations. You have no reason to conclude that the immutable entity in 1W is the eternal entity in 2W. If Aquinas is arguing that these five demonstrations taken together outline the traditional character that we otherwise know as "God", then Aquinas is guilty of a non-sequitur and his overall argument fails. Addressing the five ways as a whole, 4W and 5W are basically shit arguments, so don't bother hanging your hat on them. That leaves 1W-3W, none of which require that the entity in question be possessed of an intelligence or a mind, and thus they are, "not what everyone knows as God." That's a quick nutshell pass through the argument Aquinas is making which is sufficient to dispel your starry eyed notion that the five ways are some iron clad proof of God. They simply aren't.

[The Grand Nudger]

Taken collectively, I do not see how anyone could not recognize that a Being having all these attributes satisfies the fundamental criteria of God for all three Abrahamic religions, and perhaps even Hinduism. Basically everyone.

...?

"Excluding everyone who doesn't or didn't believe in this kind of god or any god, and anyone who can percieve some flaw in one or all of the arguments - including people who do believe in this very god- basically everyone else understands this to be god"

Doesn't sound quite as comprehensive when corrected for factual error.

[Edwardo Piet]

Great post Jor. And as for this part specifically:

 That leaves 1W-3W, none of which require that the entity in question be possessed of an intelligence or a mind, and thus they are, "not what everyone knows as God."  

This is exactly what I've been saying as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes this. If all points 1-3 are arguing for is some kind of eternal changeless uncaused cause then I believe in that (although I'm not sure about the changeless part. It depends what that means exactly). I just recognize that, no, that is not what "everyone knows as God".

I'm not willing to accept points 1-3 at all if they are going to end with the non-sequitur of "this is God" though. No it bloody well isn't, God means more than that shit. Even a fully non-intervening deist god is more than that.

---

You’re saying that the 5W have been thoroughly debunked. Debunking means showing that the arguments are fallacious.

The 5W is a failed argument as a whole. I don't have to disagree with every single part of all 5 of the ways to say that the 5 ways argument is an utter failure overall

You've already shown that you're terrible at playing Spot the Non-Sequitur™. How am I supposed to debunk something if you can't even notice that when Aquinas says something equivalent to: "2+2=4 therefore Jimbob The Three-headed Seven-Legged Custard Monster Is Going To Sell Your Salty Thigh Meat To Taco Bell" . . . it's a total failure of logic on his part?

---

So I guess if you want to elevate a semantic point to the level of "debunking" I'm not going to stop you. At the same time, that's a far cry from pointing out a faulty premise or break in the chain of logic.

Wrong.

1. If Aquinas has never presented a valid argument in the first place there's nothing worthy of debunking.

2. If I spot a faulty premise or non-sequitur that the argument as a whole depends on in order to be sound and valid then that does indeed demonstrate that the argument is a total failure.

If you don't want to call demonstrating that the argument is a total failure "debunking" then don't use that word. But I don't care what you call it if I've demonstrated that the argument is indeed a total failure. If Aquinas is going to make an argument that is at least valid he's got to at least make an argument that actually has premises that entail his conclusions, rather than just making total non-sequiturs. He's got to at least give us something worthy of debunking. I don't have to debunk 2+2=4 therefore Poop Biscuits to tell you that that makes no damn sense . . . and I don't have to pretend that 2+2=5 either. It's not my fault that you can't recognize a non sequitur when you flat out a fisted two forked arse nose so I guess Jesus must be gay then.

[Mystic]

I think there are implicit premises that Aquinas just assumed no one would be so obtuse to deny.

But then again.... he should have known that nature of those who deny God is just that, being obtuse, not that there aren't proofs.

He proved God to me because I don't demand what is obvious to always be explained in detail, and than those details explained detail, and then those details explained in detail. That is unnecessary and an insult to intelligence.

---

I already showed many ways of why the first cause must have will as far as the cosmological argument, even as a Deist, I did so.

You guys are so obtuse, can't blame Aquinas for that.

[The Grand Nudger]

You never showed a single one..and now you're blaming the audience for your failure to communicate the message....yet again.

This is just my opinion, but I think that you might want to reserves some of that derision and frustration for yourself. If there;s something to fuck up, you're the one fucking it up. The only thing all of your failures have in common, is you.