Creationism

[Belacqua]

it reveals a misunderstanding of his metaphysics

You're being too kind. 

What Little Nudgeboy is saying here is the stupidest thing that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have to be more specific, particularly if I say alot of stupid things.

Saint Tom is not in any way remarkable or remembered for having constructed a valid argument for gods. He's remembered for the rigorous attempt at such a synthesis, which christianity needed. The validity of this argument, or rather it's lack thereof, has been done to death since the very moment he shared it. You've asked people to discuss it, but..apparently, discussing it is the stupidest thing I've ever said, among so many stupid things.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

it reveals a misunderstanding of his metaphysics

You're being too kind. 

What Little Nudgeboy is saying here is the stupidest thing that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

Once you abandon argument for invective, you’ve lost the argument. 

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I've offended some sense of propriety and deference due to the great man who got his own argument wrong and knew less about the subject matter of his own life's work than an american middleschooler.

Happens every time.

[GrandizerII]

Saint Tom is not in any way remarkable or remembered for having constructed a valid argument for gods.  He's remembered for the rigorous attempt at such a synthesis, which christianity needed.

Some Christians have theological concerns with Aquinas' arguments, but others agree with the arguments and find them not only valid but sound.

And of course atheists naturally are going to reject his arguments for basically the same reason atheists naturally reject other arguments for God.

So your comment is rather subjective here. Depends from whose perspective we're speaking.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm rejecting his argument because it's invalid. My being an atheist had no effect on how he chose to structure his argument. I feel like we're drifting into the territory of there being no facts to discuss, everythings subjective, my opinion your opinion his opinion, etc etc etc. Another riff on "if my pet metaphysician can't prove himself right, you at least can't prove him wrong".

The presence of a god in his conclusion is a textbook non sequitur. So much so that it's been charitably argued that he didn't really intend for it to be taken as a statement in his argument. In the broader view, all cosmological arguments fundamentally rely on something we contend to be a logical fallacy. Parts and wholes, the idea that if some part of x has an attribute, that must also be a binding attribute of x. So, you tell me, how does my or anyone else's atheism influence this assessment of the structure of a logical argument? Would you be more comfortable if I explained that the first people to point these things out were christians, themselves?

Surely not, because you don't actually believe that the fact of whether or not an argument adheres to the constraints of logical thought is dependent on the fact of whether the person listening believes in gods, or doesn't. You don't believe that telling me what some people say™ is a truthmaking argument, because you know that some people can and have been wrong. I get that you chalk some of this up to a meaningful subjectivity - but just because two students answer the same math question different ways, doesn't mean that neither of them can be right.

...I assume, ofc.

[GrandizerII]

You're being too kind. 

What Little Nudgeboy is saying here is the stupidest thing that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

Once you abandon argument for invective, you’ve lost the argument. 

Boru

I think it was uncalled for on Belaqua's part, but:

Lest you forget: Belaqua was called feckless troll and some other stuff here in this thread, I believe. But we all stay quiet when it's him being insulted.

---

it reveals a misunderstanding of his metaphysics

You're being too kind. 

What Little Nudgeboy is saying here is the stupidest thing that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

I'm still baffled by the cat comment, to be honest. I expect more informed responses from Gae, lol.

I think maybe it's to do with the wording in the Ways (as summarized). Maybe people who aren't too informed about Aquinas' positions misinterpret him to be labeling some random arbitrary thing to be "God".

[The Grand Nudger]

A cat is a logically equivalent stand-in for his un-moved mover as he formulated his argument. If I prove that a cat exists, and then say that we all understand this to be god, I've not proven that a god exists. I've proven that a cat exists, and then called it a god. IF I prove that the universe exists, and then call it a god...I've still only proven that the universe exists. We can repeat this experiment with absolutely anything. The only way to prove a god with a logical argument is to at least attempt to prove...a god.

Cats are no more or less arbitrary than first causes, no more or less arbitrary than universes, no more or less arbitrary than gods....this is not even remotely the issue. It's a non seq, that's the issue. Just as..and for the same reason as, the cat god is a non seq.

If you need me to explain this some other way, I will. If you don't, we can move on to the logical fallacy tom couldn't have helped but commit when he decided to make a cosmological argument. Literally baked in.

---

-and if we wanted to see a valid argument for god, for comparison, we can refer to plantingas mo.

[GrandizerII]

A cat is a logically equivalent stand-in for his un-moved mover as he formulated his argument.  If I prove that a cat exists, and then say that we all understand this to be god, I've not proven that a god exists.  I've proven that a cat exists, and then called it a god.  IF I prove that the universe exists, and then call it a god...I've still only proven that the universe exists.  We can repeat this experiment with absolutely anything.  The only way to prove a god with a logical argument is to at least attempt to prove...a god.  

Cats are no more or less arbitrary than first causes, no more or less arbitrary than universes, no more or less arbitrary than gods....this is not even remotely the issue.  It's a non seq, that's the issue.  Just as..and for the same reason as, the cat god is a non seq.

If you need me to explain this some other way,  I will.  If you don't, we can move on to the logical fallacy tom couldn't have helped but commit when he decided to make a cosmological argument.  Literally baked in.

---

-and if we wanted to see a valid argument for god, for comparison, we can refer to plantingas mo.

Not quite, Gae. I really do think this is because of the wording of the summaries of these arguments that you are coming up with this type of response, but the metaphysics of Aristotle/Aquinas would never have allowed for something with potency like a cat to be the First Cause/Unmoved Mover/etc. You need to keep in mind that when you read Aquinas' Ways, you are reading summaries not all his reasoning fleshed out in one space. I strongly recommend to familiarize yourself further with his reasoning for properly understanding the context of his summarized arguments.

[The Grand Nudger]

Buddy, I'm not arguing that a cat and a first mover are the same thing. I'm pointing out that tom failed to argue for a god, at all, in his argument for a god. Just as I would fail to argue for a god, at all, by holding up a cat.

It doesn't matter a single bit what all of toms thinking was on this or any other subject. I was asked to show the issues of validity that a specific argument, as stated, presents. There's one, well known and well acknowledged and not at all controversial. Even the great tom himself came to realize this. Textbook non seq. There are more, equally well established, well commented on, and well studied.

There is at least one argument where, if you accept every premise, you cannot reject the god conclusion. Toms aint it. You can accept every premise, and reject the god conclusion, because the god conclusion does not logically follow from any of the premises, even if the first mover does. Similarly, my god conclusion does not follow from any of my cat premises, even if cats do.

A special note here, it also doesn't matter what tom or anyone else's metaphysics would allow to be considered as a god. Ask an egyptian if a cat was divine. Or a man. Or, really, anything with insufficient and or unacceptable potency™. Do I even need to comment on how impotent toms god is, in reality? Absolutely no bearing on the validity of the argument being considered, and a ludicrous grab at deference on it's face. So what if he wouldn't accept a cat, he wouldn't accept a prime mover as a god either.