Creationism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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 chief difference being that the existence of Tokyo is not a matter for serious debate.  A more apt analogy would be how to get to Minas Tirith from your house. 

Boru

[GrandizerII]

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.

The fallacy is that this is a strawman. Learn to do the opposite of strawman please.

If we're talking Second Way (for example), ultimately you need something in which essence and existence are identical (or the First Cause) to cause (sustain) the existence of others (because they can't "attach" their own act of existence to their essence).

[Silver]

That theists attribute all of creation to a creator is not a strawman. No how many times you erroneously attribute it as such.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

The fallacy is that this is a strawman. Learn to do the opposite of strawman please.

If we're talking Second Way (for example), ultimately you need something in which essence and existence are identical (or the First Cause) to cause (sustain) the existence of others (because they can't "attach" their own act of existence to their essence).

The first, second, and third way are all the same form of argument.  A strawman is a misrepresentation of a position.  I've not misrepresented cosmological arguments in general, or saint toms arguments specifically.

The issues with these arguments are known knowns - not a subject of academic debate.

[GrandizerII]

A strawman is a misrepresentation of a position.

Correct.

I've not misrepresented cosmological arguments in general, or saint toms arguments specifically.

You indeed have.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've already suggested to Bel, you'll have to be more specific.

You'll be wrong..but you still have to be more specific.

[GrandizerII]

As I've already suggested to Bel, you'll have to be more specific.

You'll be wrong..but you still have to be more specific.

Already done multiple times. Look at the first premise of the general argument you wrote. Which actual cosmological argument contains that premise in that form?

[no one]

Children need there fables to protect them from the big, bad, scary, monsterous evils!

[Belacqua]

Children need there fables to protect them from the big, bad, scary, monsterous evils!

Certainly a lot of people cling to the fable that theology consists of nothing but easily disproven fables.

[The Grand Nudger]

As I've already suggested to Bel, you'll have to be more specific.  

You'll be wrong..but you still have to be more specific.

Already done multiple times. Look at the first premise of the general argument you wrote. Which actual cosmological argument contains that premise in that form?

Specifically, all three of saint tommys cosmological arguments...in order, no less.

The argument from the first mover.
The argument from causation.
The argument from contingency.

That is what those arguments state. We either accept the special pleading premises, and since they're all cosmological arguments...accept fallacies of composition - or we don't. It's not impossible to construct a valid argument for god - poor old tom just couldn't get there. We do a disservice to people who can and did when we trot this nonsense out as though the issue were unsettled.