Questions for Atheists

It seems that you are arguing the "Five Ways" according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

1. First Way: The Argument of Motion
   1. Nothing can move itself.
   2. If every object in motion has a mover then the first object had a mover.
   3. The first mover is the immovable mover, God.
2. Second Way: Causation Effect
   1. Things exist that were caused by other things.
   2. Nothing can cause itself.
   3. There cannot be an endless string of things causing other things.
   4. Therefore god must be the first cause.

Thomas goes on to list other factors and observations as part of his "logic" as to the "proof" of god/creator. It seems that Thomas based his "arguments" on the teachings of Aristotle.
I believe however, that the philosopher Parmenides was the first to offer the argument "Ex nihil nihil fit", or "From nothing, comes nothing". (A quick search on google shows I am correct about Parmenides (at least according to the web).)
I haven't read the "Five Ways" for sometime, but I've seen the argument enough times to recognize it quite readily, especially given the context here.
I could be incorrect about the order and exact wording, but it's one in the morning and I'm too lazy to research it much at this point, please forgive me if my memory is a bit fuzzy, and do point out if/where I am incorrect.Edited by Dash on the Darkside, : Because I'm a moron and apparently I don't know how to format a list correctly.

---

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that's just how your god made me.

Except of course Dawkins did see beyond his beliefs, or at least those that were handed down to him by the society in which he grew up. Dawkins was brought up to believe in a god and was a believer until his mid-teens, when he began to discover a whole new world of knowledge, which made him realise that life was not as he’d previously been taught.I can see why some people might not take to Dawkins; he can come across as a bit of an intellectual bully. I also get the impression he sees himself as an upholder of ”scientific truth’, against an onslaught of ”black propaganda’ by some fundamental Christian groups.In the movie All The President’s Men, the term ”rat f**king’ was used to describe the methods used by the Nixon administration to discredit political opponents, and there certainly seems to be elements of that strategy in the campaigns being waged by the ID movement, so I suspect Dawkins sees himself as a bit of a Woodward or Bernstien.But I’ve probably wandered too far off topic to justify expanding any further, so I’ll wind up at this point.

Dash on the Darkside writes:

quote:

---

It seems that you are arguing the "Five Ways" according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

​

1. First Way: The Argument of Motion


1. Nothing can move itself.
2. If every object in motion has a mover then the first object had a mover.
3. The first mover is the immovable mover, God.

---

Of course, point c is contradicted by points a and b. If "nothing" can move itself, that also means god cannot, either.

quote:

---

2. Second Way: Causation Effect


1. Things exist that were caused by other things.
2. Nothing can cause itself.
3. There cannot be an endless string of things causing other things.
4. Therefore god must be the first cause.

---

Same problem: Point d is contradicted by points a and b. If nothing can cause itself, that means god cannot either.In both cases, if we allow that god can self-create and self-move, why can't the universe?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Indeed, but why would anyone need to establish that? And I think that ascribing it to being the craftwork of a superpowered father figure who is himself a chance consequent of reality is a bigger claim. You don't have to make that assumption. Dawkins argues that the tremendous explanatory power of science has shown us time and again that it can explain so many of the fundamentals of our universe it seems that it will continue to do so. Our confidence is boosted in science by virtue of its successes. Why postulate that God explains what parts science hasn't yet been able to explain? One can reasonably believe that science will provide further answers and this belief requires no God. We have a fairly decent start of explanation for the universe. We've got almost its entire history mapped out in broad details and we're getting to the nitty gritty on others.Adding gods in there is just adding entities that we don't need and which themselves require explanations that we cannot even fathom.God is only parsimonious if God is required to explain something that we know exists. God is not required to explain 'purpose' since we do not know if 'purpose' exists. If there is motivation, purpose etc. Then God would be one explanation. It might not be parsimonious depending on what the purpose is really.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Agreed. I was merely making an observation of Open Mind's argument, at no point did I say I agree with his premise. In fact, I do not.
The point of my post was to show that the argument has been done before and it was just as full of holes then. The logic simply doesn't support Thomas' argument.
I have no reason to believe that the universe cannot "self-start" or "re-start" for that matter.
I can't say with any degree of certainty that this is the first or the hundreth or the hundreth-thousand go around for this universe.Edited by Dash on the Darkside, : Spelling error fix.

---

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, that's just how your god made me.