Creationism

[GrandizerII]

Effective counters are not necessary for abstractions.

It's fine to exclaim "who the hell knows!" in response. There's nothing unreasonable about doing so. It's grand metaphysics after all.

[brewer]

Effective counters are not necessary for abstractions.

It's fine to exclaim "who the hell knows!" in response. There's nothing unreasonable about doing so. It's grand metaphysics after all.

Other than mental gymnastics what's the point?

[Gwaithmir]

Kalam's first cause is temporal first cause (as you go backwards in time, eventually you get to that first cause).

Aristotelian/Thomistic is an atemporal type of first cause. Assume time is frozen, if you go "downwards" (for lack of a better term), eventually you get to that first cause.

Kalam: everything that begins to exist is caused.

Aquinas: everything that requires cause is caused

I find this Wiki page to be overall fair because it does reflect current status of discussion on Aquinas' Ways. Unlike with the Kalam, atheists have yet to come up with something strong against these arguments. This doesn't mean there aren't reasons to reject them, of course, but effective counters are nevertheless currently lacking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

I debunked all five of these arguments when I was still a senior in Catholic school (1965-6), which was instrumental in my eventually becoming an atheist. My instructor, a priest, was not interested in discussing a critique of these "proofs." The class was merely required to agree with them and memorize them. 

[Silver]

I debunked all five of these arguments when I was still a senior in Catholic school (1965-6), which was instrumental in my eventually becoming an atheist. My instructor, a priest, was not interested in discussing a critique of these "proofs." The class was merely required to agree with them and memorize them. 

Kind of reminds me of my instructor in college way back when I took his comparative religions class. The book from which we were learning did touch upon non-belief, atheism, but we never got that far if I recall. At the end of the class, we had to write a paper. I chose to write mine from the atheistic perspective, naturally. He returned my paper and stated that it had to be redone. Oh, I redid it, alright. I wrote a multi-page personal perspective on atheism and being against religion from my own mind, using my own words, that did not involve anything that required a bibliography. Suffice it to state, he ended up giving me an incomplete for the class because I wouldn't fall in line with what he wanted.

[GrandizerII]

It's fine to exclaim "who the hell knows!" in response. There's nothing unreasonable about doing so. It's grand metaphysics after all.

Other than mental gymnastics what's the point?

Weird attitude to have. Would you ask someone what's the point of doing abstract mathematics for fun just because they enjoy doing so?

People have certain hobbies that you might not share. That's part of life. You know that, though.

[brewer]

Other than mental gymnastics what's the point?

Weird attitude to have. Would you ask someone what's the point of doing abstract mathematics for fun just because they enjoy doing so?

People have certain hobbies that you might not share. That's part of life. You know that, though.

People don't build an intrusive social institutions around abstract mathematics. Tommy did not make this argument just for fun. 

Most people with hobbies don't insist that their abstract hobbies be taken seriously or divert all conversations to talk about their abstract hobbies.

[GrandizerII]

Weird attitude to have. Would you ask someone what's the point of doing abstract mathematics for fun just because they enjoy doing so?

People have certain hobbies that you might not share. That's part of life. You know that, though.

People don't build an intrusive social institutions around abstract mathematics. Tommy did not make this argument just for fun. 

This has nothing to do with whether I find examining his arguments to be fun or not.

Most people with hobbies don't insist that their abstract hobbies be taken seriously or divert all conversations to talk about their abstract hobbies.

This thread is about examining particular arguments for God. This will be like an intellectual exercise for some, and they are naturally going to participate in such threads. And perhaps they find that maybe someone else has not examined some of these arguments properly and would like to elaborate or whatever. Doesn't mean what this person is therefore insisting that their hobbies be taken seriously and definitely doesn't mean that they're diverting all conversations to talk about something else.

---

I debunked all five of these arguments when I was still a senior in Catholic school (1965-6), which was instrumental in my eventually becoming an atheist. My instructor, a priest, was not interested in discussing a critique of these "proofs." The class was merely required to agree with them and memorize them. 

Kind of reminds me of my instructor in college way back when I took his comparative religions class. The book from which we were learning did touch upon non-belief, atheism, but we never got that far if I recall. At the end of the class, we had to write a paper. I chose to write mine from the atheistic perspective, naturally. He returned my paper and stated that it had to be redone. Oh, I redid it, alright. I wrote a multi-page personal perspective on atheism and being against religion from my own mind, using my own words, that did not involve anything that required a bibliography. Suffice it to state, he ended up giving me an incomplete for the class because I wouldn't fall in line with what he wanted.

Because you didn't provide a list of references, right? Maybe he marked it as incomplete because it was incomplete? Just saying.

[brewer]

People don't build an intrusive social institutions around abstract mathematics. Tommy did not make this argument just for fun. 

This has nothing to do with whether I find examining his arguments to be fun or not.

Most people with hobbies don't insist that their abstract hobbies be taken seriously or divert all conversations to talk about their abstract hobbies.

This thread is about examining particular arguments for God. This will be like an intellectual exercise for some, and they are naturally going to participate in such threads. And perhaps they find that maybe someone else has not examined some of these arguments properly and would like to elaborate or whatever. Doesn't mean what this person is therefore insisting that their hobbies be taken seriously and definitely doesn't mean that they're diverting all conversations to talk about something else.

You brought up the fun aspect, and hobbies, not me.

No, this thread title is about Creationism (which is the counter to evolution) and all the baggage that apologists have attached to that school of thought (mostly watchmaker). Then Bel entered, stated that "what created god" was ignorant (a valid question in light of special pleading), making an insulting monkey reference, and then the next Bel post drags in first cause. And off we go. And if you differ with Bel, then you "haven't examined properly" is his go to position. And the forum has discussed the Aquinas 5 ad nauseam as an argument for god. 

I indicated that Aquinas (Tommy) did not make the fist cause argument for fun. It was not simple a mental exercise. It's purpose was for the justification, rationalization and validation that a god exists. A god which he also defines. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

Why don't you ask Bel if his religious philosophy is only a hobby and that he should not be taken seriously.

[GrandizerII]

You brought up the fun aspect, and hobbies, not me.

I meant that while Tommy might not have formulated his arguments for fun, this does not mean I do not enjoy it as an intellectual exercise to examine his arguments (in the fairest manner possible).

No, this thread title is about Creationism (which is the counter to evolution) and all the baggage that apologists have attached to that school of thought (mostly watchmaker).

The title says one thing but then you read the actual OP post and it's basically about something else about which first cause arguments are just as relevant for discussion. If Eleven's intention is to discuss evolution (or the denial of it) then maybe he shouldn't have posted that standard strawman of a cosmological argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have a novel understanding of terms. OP comments on the god of creation needing a creator isn't a standard strawman, it's a question that anyone who proposes anything as the first in a series of causal or temporal relationships simply has to acknowledge, and address.

There are only two options for the proponent, concede that their argument denies it's own premises,or plead their way out to the detriment of the same.

Take gods entirely out of the field - why is it that contemporary philosophers haven't declared the universe or spacetime or a ham sandwich to be the ground of being™? Not because they don't fit the bill better than a ghost, but because these sorts of arguments are fundamentally insufficient. What some rando thought centuries ago is irrelevant, we're still not sure how to land an argument like this today.