Proof for God's existence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-03-2017, 05:37 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  He did have a cool name tho..Aquinas. It's like something you instantly want to whisper...

I mean, granted. For some reason, the most famous philosophers tend to be the ones with the coolest names.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
03-03-2017, 05:41 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
Really? Really? As if we'd never heard of Aquinas' proofs. Really.

No. just no. These have been debunked for hundreds of years. Try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
03-03-2017, 05:43 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
The First Way Wrote:Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ [some people] ̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶s̶t̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ [assume a priori] to be ̶G̶o̶d̶ [a non-corporeal agent which is presumed to act with intent, perpetually imperceptible by definition, and characterized by an extremely specific set of "immutable" qualities which vastly differ according to each generation, culture, and denomination that claims to speak on his, her, their, or its behalf].

The Subway, Eat Fresh Wrote:Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which ̶e̶v̶e̶r̶y̶o̶n̶e̶ [some people] gives the name of ̶G̶o̶d̶ [see above].

The Turd Way Wrote:Therefore some being exists of its own necessity [necessary for what? necessary for this argument to work out in your favor? indeed], and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶m̶e̶n̶ [some people] speak of as G̶o̶d̶ [see above].

The Fourth Way Wrote:Therefore there must also be ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶ [something which may or may not act with any intent, or possibly multiple things, or possibly nothing at all other than basic survival mechanisms at work which influence people to cooperate in order to remain in good standing with other members of their societies] which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call G̶o̶d̶ [see above].

The Fifth Fallacious Argument Wrote:Therefore some intelligent [or unintelligent] being [or series of events] exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end [this was written before natural selection was even hypothesized, so it's REALLY a stretch to apply this one to the modern day]; and this being we call G̶o̶d̶ [see above].

Wow, I never realized Aquinas was so dishonest. Thanks for the information, ProudCatholic. It was really helpful.

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like cactus's post
03-03-2017, 05:47 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  He did have a cool name tho..Aquinas. It's like something you instantly want to whisper...

Sounds like a fancy hotel... I'll be staying at the Aquinas

or maybe a shampoo

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
03-03-2017, 05:52 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
Do you suffer from hemorrhoids? Is the itching and burning unbearable?

Then try Aquinas hemorrhoidal cream, a soothing placebo for asses.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
03-03-2017, 05:54 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:37 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  For some reason, the most famous philosophers tend to be the ones with the coolest names.
I Kant disagree with that.

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cactus's post
03-03-2017, 06:04 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 05:02 PM)ProudCatholic Wrote:  You want it, you've got it!

Feast your eyes on the proof for God (more specifically the Catholic God's) existence!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/we...alysis.htm

1) No, ProudCatholic, you are wrong. As it was said above we all know that the only true god that exists is GirlyMan Angel. He is real! He told me more than once "I am, I am" Tongue
2) If God wanted us to have proof then to have faith wouldn't be the first principle of the Gospel.
3) I will continue in my next post. I will ask you some questions. I hope you have answers.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Alla's post
03-03-2017, 06:05 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
We've seen plenty of "proofs" for God.

They've all been flawed. Usually hillariously flawed.

Let's go through this list of yours, shall we?

Argument from Motion:
Item 7 is a breezy and unsupported assertion. Just randomly thrown out there. But the hilarity begins with Item 8. "This everyone understands to be God" is just... no. Just no. This is blatant and unsupported equivocation. Proving a first mover would simply prove a first mover, not that the first mover was your god. But even more hilarious, you have a conclusion in 8 (there must be a first mover) that directly contradicts an earlier piece of the argument (each thing in motion must be set in motion by something else). This doesn't prove the existence of God. This proves that your logic is contradictory and flawed.

Argument from Efficient Causes:
This has all the same problems. An empty assertion of the impossibility of infinite regress, a bald-faced assertion that the first cause is your God, and a contradiction between the conclusion and earlier parts of the argument.

Argument from Possibility and Necessity:
In addition to just assuming that infinite regress is impossible (which this argument implicitly hinges on) and just blankly asserting that the conclusion is called God (as opposed to, I dunno, an impersonal unthinking thing like the Big Bang, this argument also conflates things that cease to exist with those that begin to exist (ruling out, say, something that had always existed up to a certain point and then ceased to exist).

Argument from Gradation of Being:
Oh so much wrong here. It assumes an absolute standard of greatness, it asserts that greatest things cause lesser things (rather than lesser things improving towards the greater) as a bald assertion, it sets up obvious paradoxes (eg, wouldn't a perfect being produce perfect creations rather than imperfect ones), and it assumes that the limit suprema of a set is within the set (specifically, it takes the existence of hot things and assumes that this implies a "hottest" thing).

Argument from Design:
That we imagine things might have a design doesn't mean they have one, nor does them moving towards some goal, order, or so forth imply that they were designed to do so. Sometimes bird crap falls on our heads without birds specifically targeting us, after all. (Unless they're seagulls. Seagulls always aim for humans.) This doesn't explicitly cite the biological world, but within biology evolution has blown this argument out of the water. And, again, we see an arbitrary and blatant equivocation of the end conclusion with God based on... nothing whatsoever.

Aquinas is vastly, vastly overrated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Reltzik's post
03-03-2017, 06:06 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
ProudCatholic Wrote:2.Assume that every being is a contingent being.
why would we assume this?

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alla's post
03-03-2017, 06:08 PM
RE: Proof for God's existence
(03-03-2017 06:04 PM)Alla Wrote:  No, ProudCatholic, you are wrong. As it was said above we all know that the only true god that exists is GirlyMan

I wish I could have been created in his image instead, then.
I feel so inferior Weeping

If we came from dust, then why is there still dust?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cactus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: