Atheist here, how do I debunk Aquinas' 5 ways? I don't want to believe in god
>>23539781Even if he is right, why would this unmoved mover be specifically the Abrahamic god? Why not Mars?In any case, if god is immaterial and the universe is material, you need to explain how immaterial things interact with material things.All in all, the unmoved mover could have been a quantum fluctuation. When there is no time, no space, all that is possible is necessary.
>Unmoved mover argumentFaulty premise, but even if it were true, there's no reason to assume that the unmoved mover is a creator god. Could just as easy be a particle, a black hole, or an invisible rabbit.>CausalitySame problems as above.>Necessary BeingWhy would the necessary being not be contingent on another necessary being contingent on another necessary being, ad infinitum? Makes no sense.>Perfect Being"Degrees of goodness" is a ludicrous, unfalsifiable premise, not even worth responding to.>Intelligent BeingSee above
>hurr durr the unmoved move could be Mars, a quantum fluctuation, a particle, a black hole, an invisible ratLMFAO. You people really are fucking retarded and have no idea what you are talking about. The conclusion of the First Way is that there must be a being who is the unmoved mover, or, more technically, pure act without any admixture of potency. Pure act can be nothing other than absolutely simple, that is, it cannot be a composite of form-matter, genus-species, substance-accident, etc. Can any of the proposed object fit this? No, you fucking retards. Did you also know that pure act must also be immune to multiplication, that there cannot be in principle more than one? No? I thought so. Read more on it before contributing with this low-IQ drivel.
Just read Graham Oppy.
>>23539979What does any of this have to do with God and the Bible
>>23539979>The conclusion of the First Way is that there must be a being who is the unmoved mover, or, more technically, pure act without any admixture of potency. You say this like that doesn't make the argument even MORE retarded. There is no reason to think that the universe must have been set in motion by "pure act." It's a completely baseless assumption that could only be made by someone who already believes in a creator god and is trying to retroactively justify that belief. Aquinas' 5 arguments have also all been thoroughly logically debunked, in many cases by OTHER Christian theologists who think his logic spurious, so it's even more retarded that you are under the impression people who don't agree with him are the ones who don't read.
>>23539985There are independent arguments to show that pure act must have the traditional attributes we ascribe to God alone, such as immutability, omnipotence, intellect, will, etc. OP mentioned nothing about Bible.>>23539991If you can't tell me what the difference is between a per se series and a per accidens one, then I cannot take you seriously at all.
>>23539998>If you don't use and agree with Aquinas' made up jargon then you aren't a serious personlol. Also, this>Pure act can be nothing other than absolutely simpleand this>pure act must have the traditional attributes we ascribe to God alone, such as immutability, omnipotence, intellect, will, etc.are mutually exclusive you fucking moron. Immutability, omnipotence, intellect, and will are complex (largely anthropomorphic) attributes that only someone with a sub-70 IQ could possibly characterize as "absolutely simple".
>>23539790>why would this unmoved mover be specifically the Abrahamic godIt's almost as if that was the next thing he explained in the summa theologica
>>23539781You're free not accept their conclusions, but that the theist has perfectly rational grounds for his belief cannot be contested. God necessarily exists, do with it what you will.
>>23540080>>23540112The level of mental gymnastics a man has to perform to convince himself to believe in Yahweh would be impressive if it wasn't so utterly pointless.
>everything popped into existence by itself out of nothing billions of years ago>fish with legs>life evolved from non-life>all humans come from talking monkeys>if you don't believe this you'll be called a bible thumperWhy do atheists fall for this silliness?The starting point for any spiritual journey in the 21st century probably begins with the question whether you can genuinely believe that everything evolved out of nothing -- or to be more precise, an explosion ("rapid expansion," if you prefer) of a tiny dense speck of matter.Some people at least *claim* to be able to believe this, but I daresay it takes more faith than it does to be a Catholic.For the existence of a Creator makes more sense than the absence of one. The issue being how to explain the rationality and design of a universe that allows us to predict particular movements of specific planets and stars to the minute centuries in advance of those movements, and likewise to ascertain those movements "at any date of the historic past."Such orderliness and repetition, over immensely long spans of time, bespeaks pattern and design. How does an explosion result in the perfect regularity that the movement of planets and suns exhibit? A merely accidental pattern - the natural result of an explosion - does not function with such great regularity. Pic related.
There's no good response to the cosmological argument. The most intelligent I have read is Russell's, which basically goes: "Just because everything has a cause doesn't mean that EVERYTHING taken together has a cause, it's a fallacy of composition". But it isn't a fallacy of composition, the sum of contingent beings is contingent even if it is infinite. Not all composition is fallacious, that should be obvious to a logician like Russell. Aristotle who first worked the argument out thought the sum was infinite, that the universe extended into the past forever and would exist forever, but still realized that no sum of contingent beings can be necessary no matter how big. It would be like thinking you could make a monument that floats in the air if you just made it big enough.
>>23541581>everything popped into existence by itself out of nothing billions of years agoThat's the Theist outlook, yes. It's even right at the beginning of The Bible.
>>23540126Look up the meaning of the tetragrammaton. Then realize how little you know.
>>23541605When Catholic Priest Father Georges Lemaître first thought up what we now know as the Big Bang Theory, scientists waved it off as creationist rubbish...Once scientists started to discover evidence that supported it, they did a 180 and began to say it was evidence against creationism.And if you ask people today who came up with the Big Bang theory, most will falsely assume it wad Stephen Hawking.
>>23541605You don't know anything about how Genesis has been interpreted by Christians and Jews over the last 2000 years to fit with Greek philosophy (which runs all through the NT btw). God isn't a being in the sky that decided to create a world one day because he was bored.
>>23539781Just be a competent eternalist and you can do away with all theistic arguments easily. An important part of this is understanding the Eleatic fragments.
>>23541630You're a dotard, Parmenides was the beginning of dogmatic metaphysics/theology that led to people like Aquinas and Leibniz.
