Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think Zeus is a good fit for the First Cause that the idea of act and potency would entail. Do you or some other atheist have a good argument for how the First Cause (or Prime Mover) could be something other than God.

I see, so you don't actually mean act and potency as relayed by aristotle...but the christian god?  I don't think that the christian god is a good fit for the first cause, if there was a first cause...mostly since it's fiction.

Perhaps you could explain to me how you equate the hypothetical prime mover with the christian god?

[Amarok]

Sigh were going over this again 

[chimp3]

Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality. 

Philosophy our second. 

We know more now through science.

[FireFromHeaven]

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

For the actual argument, it is basically:

1. Change involves a potential being actualized
2. A potential must be actualized by something already actual
3. Some things do not exist necessarily and require their potential for existence to be actualized
4. If the thing doing this actualizing has potentials, it would also require another actual thing to actualize it
5. Therefore the chain of actualization must conclude in some purely actual thing
6. Since this thing would be purely actual it would be unchanging and eternal
7. There could only be one such being as there would be no unactualized potentials to differentiate one such being from another
8. Since it caused all non purely actual things it would be omnipotent
9. (EDIT Forgot to include.) Since all non purely actual things, including intelligent beings, came from this Pure Actuality, it would neccessarily be both intelligent, since a cause cannot give something it does not at least possess virtually, and all knowing since the attributes of all things flow from it
10. And that is basically the monotheistic God

This is very bare bones. The article I linked presents an alternative argument that gets to the same conclusion. If you are worried about bugs just Google "Edward Feser Avicenna" and it should be the first to come up.

I'd also like to note that I would prefer direction to good atheist books, articles, or arguments. Debating this in a forum is not ideal but I am open to it if no one has read anything that would work.

[brewer]

There is nothing as entertaining as "new to the Kool-Aid". (Feser)

Why is the first cause necessary? Why can't there be infinite regress? Why not multiple gods? 

Welcome.

Edit: It looks simplistic but give it a view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgisehuGOyY

[FireFromHeaven]

Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality. 

Philosophy our second. 

We know more now through science.

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

[brewer]

Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality. 

Philosophy our second. 

We know more now through science.

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

You can't philosophize/argue a god into existence.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

Neither did Thomas...but..and this is important, a prime mover doesn't "refute" atheism -or- establish theism. An atheist is free to posit a prime mover all day ery day, and only a factual and existent theistic god can establish theism.
(as opposed to...say..deism, or animism)

Prime movers emphatically and by definition -do not- rely on theism..which is an exceedingly specific god claim, and the only thing that atheism refers to in the first place.

That "something" started the chain..is not a god claim, or a claim which even has the -ability- to address the point of contention between theism and atheism. Or, put another way, that "something" started the chain does not make that something a god, let alone the christian god..which, again, are elements of fiction.

But I have to ask....if you are a christian, but you don't think that the argument to which you are referring establishes your god claim...why are you a christian, again..and why are you..as a christian, pointing to it as support for your god claim or a "refutation" of atheism?

[FireFromHeaven]

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

You can't philosophize/argue a god into existence.

You are correct. However you could show that one already existed.

[chimp3]

Religion was our first attempt at explaining reality. 

Philosophy our second. 

We know more now through science.

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

I would argue that philosophy is a good way to argue morality, ethics, law, etc. It is useless as a way to determine the nature of reality. The limitation of the human mind was demonstrated by Galileo when he looked up with a telescope. Since then, science has relied on instrumentation to see beyond what our mammal/ primate senses can perceive.