Even assuming this is true, seems to me those two arguments completely undermine the concept of the Christian God. Did Aquinas have any counter-argument beyond his “prime mover” guff?
Tell you what, ITR champion - how about if you sum up Aquinas’ first three proofs?
- then we can compare them side by side with Dawkins’ attempt and see where they differ
He was a believer, and therefore a fool on any subject touching his religion. His intelligence is meaningless, because he was dedicated to not using it.
And what makes you think there are just two arguments ? And for that matter, even if there are, there are exactly zero “compelling arguments” for the Christian - or any - God, so atheism is still ahead.
There’s the logical incoherency of the whole idea; the inconsistency of God’s supposed behavior, the fact that known physical laws forbid God as he is described, and the fact that God as described is not only not “infinitely good”, but outright evil. Just off the top of my head.
Even if true, so what ? They’ve been wrong since the beginning.
I suspect what Thomas Aquinas said was, “Respondeo dicendum absolute Deum non esse corpus. Quod tripliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia nullum corpus movet non motum, ut patet inducendo per singula. Ostensum est autem supra quod Deus est primum movens immobile. Unde manifestum est quod Deus non est corpus. Secundo, quia necesse est id quod est primum ens, esse in actu, et nullo modo in potentia. Licet enim in uno et eodem quod exit de potentia in actum, prius sit potentia quam actus tempore, simpliciter tamen actus prior est potentia, quia quod est in potentia, non reducitur in actum nisi per ens actu.”
Anything else is summary.
[quote=“astorian, post:19, topic:485591”]
Well, first, there are quite a few more arguments against the existence of god, other than the two that Aquinas addressed. Off the top of my head the complete and total lack of actual evidence for any god despite thousands of religions and millennia of trying is pretty damned convincing.
Second, Aquinas does a horrible job refuting the arguments, offering mainly unsupported assertions on the nature of god. His '5 proof’s can easily shown to be unsupported and unsound.
The Op did no such thing. The argument as written does not say that Aquinas’ arguments are valid, simply that Dawkins did not describe them in good faith. I’d say he made his case.
The simplest way I think to dispute Aquinas is simply to disagree with the given that everything must have a first cause of some sort.
I too agreed that Dawkins’ paraphrases weren’t all described well, and that he left some important points out. But i’d be interested to know what’s led you to agree that this was done in bad faith.
:: post snipped::
Existence is a property of a thing.
Slee
The existence of God CAN be disproven, for certain values of God.
The modern theological dodge is to construct God-hypothoses that are beyond the reach of empirical investigation. But there is no reason that God should *inherently *be immune to physical proof.
I am no defending St. Thomas but, this sounds pretty arrogant considering that him is a great thinker, wether he was right or not in this case.
I’m beginning to think the OP’s crusade is something akin to some religious groups coming to non-believers’ doors on Saturday mornings not really to convert, but for a good dose of getting yelled at. It reaffirms their faith, due to some strangely twisted logic that makes abuse received while trying to spread their brand of One True Religion count directly as brownie points with god, and there’s the smug satisfaction of having done A Righteous Thing.
I think we’ll need to come up with some cheap immediate gratification mechanisms as well if we want this atheism thing to ever really catch on…
Nobody’s doing that here. You can acknowledge that Dawkins is a piss-poor philosopher without arguing that God exists. In fact, I’ve previously cited two atheist scholars who were positively aghast at Dawkins’ attempts at philosohy: philosophy professor Michael Ruse (writing in the December 2007 issue of Isis) and evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr.
Unfortunately, a lot of people fail to see this distinction. I’ve repeatedly seen that if you take issue with Dawkins and his arguments, a great many people respond by saying “How can you say that he’s wrong when you haven’t proven that God exists? Huh?”
Sure. I don’t see how Dawkins being an intelligent man and an able researcher could have failed to grasp Aquinas’ arguments. Still, his representation of them was innacurate. Further, it was innacurate in just such a way as to make them seem weak and easy to dispute.
So, either Dawkins is incapable of grasping Aquinas or paraphrasing accurately or else he misrepresented the arguments on purpose for rhetorical effect.
The latter seems the more reasonable assumption.
I suppose this last point is probably the part where we disagree. The first point, in lacking a part of Aquinas’ logic, does seem a weaker argument, in that it doesn’t back up the logic to the extent that Aquinas does. On the other hand, i’d say the third point was quite considerably strengthened and made harder to dispute, ironically for the same reason of leaving out logic, this time however that logic being really considerably flawed.
So given that, i’d tend myself to say it’s the problem with paraphrasing.
We can disagree. Oddly, I guess that means I have a higher opinion of Dawkins’ skills than you do. The man ain’t Forrest Gump.
Forgive me, I mispoke…
Like all men, XXX is/was a fool.
There, that should cover it.
Eh. Intelligence and skill with words and all those fun things aren’t one single area where great ability in one implies great ability in all. Not that I really tend to think of the guy as having great ability, but you know what I mean.
I don’t really suppose it’s that odd for a higher opinion of skill to be contrasted with a higher opinion of ethics.
<sigh>
Appeal to authority is always lame, attacking authority as an obtuse assault on an unspoken subject is worse and intellectually dishonest.
If you really believe ITR Champion cares whether or not Einstien believed in god you and I have nothing more to discuss.