Creationism

[GrandizerII]

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.

If a causally or temporally infinite/non-contingent x is conceivable, then a causally or temporally infinite/non-contingent event or process is similarly conceivable.  Any argument that denies the latter in order to create the possibility or the necessity of former has been poorly formed.

Yes, because that's exactly what the OP was arguing ... </sarcasm>

Ever considered becoming a lawyer, Gae?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ever consider assessing these arguments critically?

Using your lawyer question - if I argued that there must have been a burglary, therefore there was a burglary, and we all understand you to be the burglar - how would you defend yourself?

[GrandizerII]

Ever consider assessing these arguments critically?

OP:

The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that all must have a creator.

What's the cosmological argument that contains such a premise?

Notice that, on the first page, at least one atheist (aside from Bel) acknowledged that this was a strawman argument.

Regarding the lawyer question:

That's easy. If this is the only context to go by, the argument isn't valid. It might've been not just one burglar but many, with the possibility that none of them would be me.

That is not analogous to what Aquinas is saying in each of his Ways (unless you willing to add further context to your burglary argument).

Aquinas, in each of the Ways, argues specifically towards a specific "entity" that turns out to be what Aquinas believes is God in the first place.

For your analogy to work, you'd have to have argued beforehand that I am the only being who would ever commit burglary or something like that.

If you want to strip Aquinas' arguments out of context and treat them strictly as standalone syllogisms, then yes, they would be non sequiturs if you want to include the God part. Otherwise, without the God part, they would not be non sequiturs and that would be the primary way to look at these arguments if you were to treat them each in isolation.

[GrandizerII]

For Gae, something of relevance:

Second, it may appear that Aquinas is unjustified in describing the first efficient cause as God, as least if by “God” one has in mind a person possessing the characteristics Christian theologians and philosophers attribute to him (for example, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, love, goodness, and so forth.). Yet Aquinas does not attempt to show through the previous argument that the demonstrated cause has any of the qualities traditionally predicated of the divine essence. He says: “When the existence of a cause is demonstrated from an effect, this effect takes the place of the definition of the cause in proof of the cause’s existence” (ST Ia 2.2 ad 2). In other words, the term God—at least as it appears in ST Ia 2.2—refers only to that which produces the observed effect. In the case of the second way, God is synonymous with the first efficient cause; it does not denote anything of theological substance. We might think of the term “God” as a purely nominal concept Aquinas intends to investigate further (Te Velde, 2006: 44; Wippel, 2006: 46). For the study of what God is must be subsequent to demonstrating that he is. A complete account of the divine nature requires a more extensive examination, which he undertakes in the subsequent articles of ST.

https://iep.utm.edu/aq-ph-th/

So according to this analysis, God (in the Ways) should be understood to be the bare minimal, one that is exactly the "entity" concluded in each of the Ways. Aquinas isn't presupposing the triunity of God here or anything about God that requires further demonstration.

It may be that God the Trinity cannot be the same as God-as-First-Cause but that is a separate debate and has no bearing on the validity of the each of the Ways.

[Pat Mustard]

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)

There's plenty of strong arguments against the Thomist three ways (1, 2 & 5 are the exact same argument), firstly the Teleological argument (the three that are one) depends on the unstated assumption of "firstly, assume god exists. Aquinas doesn't prove god's existence with this argument, he doesn't offer any evidence for the assumptions underpinning his arguments nor show that they are necessary conditions of existence.

Argument three assumes that for anything to exist something must exist for ever. There are two problems with this 1) it's an unevidenced assertion given with no attempt at proof and 2) if true it doesn't lead anywhere near god without a lot more evidence being provided to come to that conclusion. Given our current knowledge we have a possible candidate for an "eternally existant" thing, which is energy, not god.

Argument four is simply Aquinas assuming there is a perfect everything and asserting god embodies all those perfections. No proof offered to show that there is a perfect justice or love oe whatever, just Aquinas proclaiming it to be true because he says so. And again he makes no effort to show that if his premise is true that it must lead to god, he simply asserts it.

Even in his own time his fellow theologians could see tbat Thomas Aquinas was arguing from faulty assumptions and often making "because I say so!" declamations. They knew his three ways were not proof of god, nor that they provided evidence for it.

[Belacqua]

(1, 2 & 5 are the exact same argument)

No, they're really not. They look the same to modern people because we're not used to the terms, maybe. But causality, essentiality, and becoming are different things. 1 and 3 are cosmological, and 5 is teleological. 

depends on the unstated assumption of "firstly, assume god exists

No, it really doesn't. All the arguments begin with some basic thing, like "contingent things are caused by other things." That doesn't assume a god at all. 

Aquinas doesn't prove god's existence with this argument

It's been repeatedly pointed out that each argument attempts to prove only what it attempts to prove. No more. So a first cause argument argues for a first cause. That this is God is something we need other arguments for.

he doesn't offer any evidence for the assumptions underpinning his arguments nor show that they are necessary conditions of existence.

As has been pointed out, none of the arguments is a stand-alone syllogism. Each one is more like the table of contents of elaborate discussions which require more knowledge. This was understood by the people who read them originally, and they were embedded in books which assumed knowledge of the various terms -- like "cause" in the Aristotelian sense. 

The idea that they can be detached from larger discussion and used as stand-alone proofs is a modern mistake. 

Argument three assumes that for anything to exist something must exist for ever.

No, it doesn't. As has been pointed out repeatedly, starting points and "forever" are not a part of the argument. It argues that for the full of chain of contingent things to exist, some non-contingent thing must exist. 

  There are two problems with this 1) it's an unevidenced assertion given with no attempt at proof and 2) if true it doesn't lead anywhere near god without a lot more evidence being provided to come to that conclusion.

Because 1) you have to know a lot more than just what's contained in the summary. IT'S NOT A SYLLOGISM. And 2) it isn't intended to prove the Christian God, it's intended to prove a first cause. I'm losing track of how many times I've typed this out. 

Given our current knowledge we have a possible candidate for an "eternally existant" thing, which is energy, not god.

The existence of energy requires that existence itself is real. Existence itself is the first cause. 

Nothing in physics contradicts this. 

Argument four is simply Aquinas assuming there is a perfect everything

No, it doesn't assume that. It assumes that in all matters where degrees are relevant, there is one thing which is the greatest degree of that quality. 

This is Aristotelian and needs to be read in that context. It does assume that a quality in an object is caused by another object with the same quality. This doesn't sound right to me, but again, it is a long involved argument, not evident from the summary in the Five Ways. 

and asserting god embodies all those perfections.  

No, not asserting that. It ONLY says that there must be a greatest degree of a quality which causes that quality in other things. As with the necessity/contingency argument, to get from there to the Christian God requires far more additional proof. 

And again he makes no effort to show that if his premise is true that it must lead to god, he simply asserts it.

Because it was never intended as a stand-alone syllogism. Each term requires further study.

Even in his own time his fellow theologians could see tbat Thomas Aquinas was arguing from faulty assumptions and often making "because I say so!" declamations.  They knew his three ways were not proof of god, nor that  they provided evidence for it.

If one thing is certain in this world, it's that the Scholastics argue about everything. 

Can you point me to one contemporary case in which it was asserted that all the assumptions are faulty? 

I'm curious where you're getting your information, since every bit of it seems to misunderstand the issues.

[GrandizerII]

That's the thing. Us atheists are top experts at debunking these silly arguments from Tommy by just having a quick glance at the arguments and without proper background reading. Been there, done that.

Check these guys out on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/What-do-atheists-a...nce-of-God

As someone who is somewhat more familiar with the underlying reasoning than before, it's surprising just how many atheists misunderstand these arguments and not even realize that they do.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ever consider assessing these arguments critically?

OP:

The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that all must have a creator.

What's the cosmological argument that contains such a premise?

Notice that, on the first page, at least one atheist (aside from Bel) acknowledged that this was a strawman argument.

Regarding the lawyer question:

That's easy. If this is the only context to go by, the argument isn't valid. It might've been not just one burglar but many, with the possibility that none of them would be me.

That is not analogous to what Aquinas is saying in each of his Ways (unless you willing to add further context to your burglary argument).

Aquinas, in each of the Ways, argues specifically towards a specific "entity" that turns out to be what Aquinas believes is God in the first place.

For your analogy to work, you'd have to have argued beforehand that I am the only being who would ever commit burglary or something like that.

If you want to strip Aquinas' arguments out of context and treat them strictly as standalone syllogisms, then yes, they would be non sequiturs if you want to include the God part. Otherwise, without the God part, they would not be non sequiturs and that would be the primary way to look at these arguments if you were to treat them each in isolation.

They would still be non seqs even if we didn't include the god bits.  All invalid argumentation is a non seq. Stop trying to swallow the koolaid.

Everything that exists must have a creator/cause/explanation. That creator/cause/explanation must be uncreated/uncaused/unexplained. This we understand to be a god. Scratch that third statement and see if you can spot another fallacy. For my analogy to work, like the analogy before it, you need to understand valid and invalid argumentation. The issue is not understanding of aquinas, mine yours or anyone else's - this is just you calling people dumb, and you're being about as specific as Bel was when he levied the same complaint earlier. I think you should leave that to him, it's his entire schtick, as a feckless troll.

The validity of these arguments are an item of academic trivia. There's no debate as to whether or not they succeed, and there are better versions of each argument - which still fail. The first through third are the same argument. The unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, and the non contingent being in contingent reality.

[Belacqua]

That's the thing. Us atheists are top experts at debunking these silly arguments from Tommy by just having a quick glance at the arguments and without proper background reading. Been there, done that.

Check these guys out on Quora:

https://www.quora.com/What-do-atheists-a...nce-of-God

As someone who is somewhat more familiar with the underlying reasoning than before, it's surprising just how many atheists misunderstand these arguments and not even realize that they do.

People accuse Thomas of beginning with the conclusion, but I think way too many of them begin with a conclusion of their own: that theology must be so stupid that anyone can understand it immediately, and any high school kid can debunk it. So when someone says "well, actually..." it barely computes.

---

There are two ways to get (conveniently) from my house to Tokyo. I call these two ways the Two Ways.

1) The way of the bullet train.

You go to my city's train station, get a bullet train headed east, and ride until the recorded announcement says you're in Tokyo. You'll arrive at Tokyo Station, which is downtown.

2) The way of the airplane.

You go to the local airport, outside town, and get an airplane at a gate which says "Tokyo". It will arrive at Haneda, which is outside Tokyo.

These are summaries of the two ways in which you can go.

Now a-travelists will point out that the First Way has major problems. First, trains aren't made of bullets. That's impossible. Second, the description of the way doesn't include train times, ticket prices, etc. Clearly, the "proof" is incomplete.

The Second Way is worse, since it doesn't even contain proof that airplanes can fly! How can we know this?! Obviously going outside the proof itself is inconvenient for me.

And neither of them proves that Tokyo is real! Or that it's the capital of Japan, or that my favorite tailor is still in business or that girls still work in Kabukicho! How can I trust a summary of a way to do something if it doesn't even attempt to prove what it's not meant to prove!?

[The Grand Nudger]

If those ways don't tell us how to do one very specific thing - then they're not what they say they are on the tin, huh?

They failed to show us how to do that one specific thing, because they are invalid.

Soooooo....yeah, why should we trust them? Because they're written on a cave wall? Because other people (hilariously) do?

---

If one thing is certain in this world, it's that the Scholastics argue about everything. 

Can you point me to one contemporary case in which it was asserted that all the assumptions are faulty? 

I'm curious where you're getting your information, since every bit of it seems to misunderstand the issues.

Can any cosmological argument address the mereological objection?  Does a thing have to be true of the whole if it is true of one or all parts?