Evidence for God from Science

trulyenlightened wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.

I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don

For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.

I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don

For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.

I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don

For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:After reading through this thread I have noticed some things that bother me about skeptics.First off they usually have alot of scientific knowledge as with this skeptic and they take their scientific knowledge and use it while adding in irrational arguments to it and yet it can seem so convincing because of their scientific knowledge.But the Devil is in the details.

I mean this skeptic laid out in this thread in a very scientific way how over billions of years that all things have a cause and all things that have a cause were caused by something else and yet when it is brought up that Thomas Aquinas stated this in the 13th century and that it is evidence for an eternal God,it is ignored.

This skeptic lays it out explaining how over billions of years all things have a cause and all things that have a cause are caused by something else,yet this goes out the window and unscientific assumptions are made when it comes to the vaccum or them particles in it that pop in and out of existence.Suddenly it has no cause like everything else does over billions of years eventhough everything else did over billions of years and it always comes down to random,blind chance or nothing that is irrational and is not based on reality and the evidence.Based on the facts of how science has confirmed the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas correct and that yes there must be an uncaused first cause which is eternal God.

I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don

For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

Aquinas states that everything that moves must have had something to move it. This basically is the first and second laws of motion. He then concluded that because the Universe had a starting point(beginning), that this beginning was the unmovable force, or prime mover. My apparently ignorant comments, was stating that since the starting point itself was not stationary, NOTHING immovable could exist. Thus, NO IMMOVABLE beginning or starting point. The Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC may give us the new tools and the new knowledge to look past the beginning of our Universe. How do we know for certain that our Universe is not merely part of an expanding Multiverse? We don't know as yet. Also Aquinas states that there can't be endless regressive causalities, and that there must have been a beginning, or a "first cause". Again with this beginning, or starting point. He is simply claiming that if infinite regression is not allowed, all things must have had a beginning. Since no one knows for certain if this beginning did not have a beginning, which had a beginning, etc., it becomes only a philosophical argument from ignorance. Making this leap of faith to affix "God" as the beginning, is nothing more than a label or Gap-filler. Any other Religion can affix their own label or Gap-filler, and theirs would be just as valid.

So instead of insulting and trying to demean me, by claiming that I make ignorant remarks, maybe you might want to explain WHY my remarks are so ignorant? Or, maybe you would like to provide some objective evidence that is based on something other than philosophical convoluted "mumbo jumbo"? Before you simply call Aquinas's proofs scientifically valid. Don

No, as Byblos would say, you misunderstand Aquinas. I believe he's explained why.

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:
I can only give you my point of view, based on the evidence from physics, natural laws, and the existence of virtual particles. I don't know how science confirms Aquinas's argument, since it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one. From a logical perspective, it is only an argument from ignorance. Or, merely a stop-gap, using a Designer to fill the gap as the uncaused cause, or the unmoved mover. This seems a way of avoiding the obvious question, of who created the creator, and so on. This seems a matter of Belief, not science. Maybe you can demonstrate the FACTS that science uses to validate Aquinas's argument. Not just assert that it does. Don

For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

Aquinas states that everything that moves must have had something to move it. This basically is the first and second laws of motion. He then concluded that because the Universe had a starting point(beginning), that this beginning was the unmovable force, or prime mover. My apparently ignorant comments, was stating that since the starting point itself was not stationary, NOTHING immovable could exist. Thus, NO IMMOVABLE beginning or starting point. The Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC may give us the new tools and the new knowledge to look past the beginning of our Universe. How do we know for certain that our Universe is not merely part of an expanding Multiverse? We don't know as yet. Also Aquinas states that there can't be endless regressive causalities, and that there must have been a beginning, or a "first cause". Again with this beginning, or starting point. He is simply claiming that if infinite regression is not allowed, all things must have had a beginning. Since no one knows for certain if this beginning did not have a beginning, which had a beginning, etc., it becomes only a philosophical argument from ignorance. Making this leap of faith to affix "God" as the beginning, is nothing more than a label or Gap-filler. Any other Religion can affix their own label or Gap-filler, and theirs would be just as valid.

So instead of insulting and trying to demean me, by claiming that I make ignorant remarks, maybe you might want to explain WHY my remarks are so ignorant? Or, maybe you would like to provide some objective evidence that is based on something other than philosophical convoluted "mumbo jumbo"? Before you simply call Aquinas's proofs scientifically valid. Don

You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying, then you make an argument against your strawman of Aquinas' teachings. Then cry "insults" when you're called on it. Please go back and reread what Byblos has explained to you about why you're in error.

You call yourself "Honest Don", yet you continue to argue against a straw man, even after you've been shown why you're wrong.

Put your big boy pants on, quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument, instead of the straw man you keep arguing against.

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote: For an intelligent guy, you really say some ignorant things.

I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

Aquinas states that everything that moves must have had something to move it. This basically is the first and second laws of motion. He then concluded that because the Universe had a starting point(beginning), that this beginning was the unmovable force, or prime mover. My apparently ignorant comments, was stating that since the starting point itself was not stationary, NOTHING immovable could exist. Thus, NO IMMOVABLE beginning or starting point. The Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC may give us the new tools and the new knowledge to look past the beginning of our Universe. How do we know for certain that our Universe is not merely part of an expanding Multiverse? We don't know as yet. Also Aquinas states that there can't be endless regressive causalities, and that there must have been a beginning, or a "first cause". Again with this beginning, or starting point. He is simply claiming that if infinite regression is not allowed, all things must have had a beginning. Since no one knows for certain if this beginning did not have a beginning, which had a beginning, etc., it becomes only a philosophical argument from ignorance. Making this leap of faith to affix "God" as the beginning, is nothing more than a label or Gap-filler. Any other Religion can affix their own label or Gap-filler, and theirs would be just as valid.

So instead of insulting and trying to demean me, by claiming that I make ignorant remarks, maybe you might want to explain WHY my remarks are so ignorant? Or, maybe you would like to provide some objective evidence that is based on something other than philosophical convoluted "mumbo jumbo"? Before you simply call Aquinas's proofs scientifically valid. Don

You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying, then you make an argument against your strawman of Aquinas' teachings. Then cry "insults" when you're called on it. Please go back and reread what Byblos has explained to you about why you're in error.

You call yourself "Honest Don", yet you continue to argue against a straw man, even after you've been shown why you're wrong.

Put your big boy pants on, quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument, instead of the straw man you keep arguing against.

I am ignorant about all things that I don't know. But I am not ignorant of all things that I do know. But other than ranting, accusing, and being insulting, could you PLEASE tell me where I am using the principles of Physics as a straw man? Or using any part of my argument as a straw man? Please show me where my argument is incorrect or illogical? It is you that is claiming that my argument is wrong. It is you that is claiming that I am using a straw man. It is you that is claiming I need to put on my "big boy pant" to make an argument that any average high school science student could make.

Where am I going wrong? What is the direct link between an uncaused cause and an immovable mover, and our Universe? Or is this all just a leap of faith? It will take more than just browbeating, to make me convince myself that my argument is wrong, just because you say so. I just don't see any evidence of any direct link. If the argument is simply philosophical, or a matter belief, then no direct link is necessary. But, when you use physical principle(motion, cause and effect) in your argument, please demonstrate a direct link.

Let me give you an example. Socrates stated that things could either exist outside of the mind, or they could exist only inside of the mind. He reasoned that ALL things that exist outside of the mind CAN'T also exist inside of the mind. If you look at an apple on the table, it can only exist in the physical reality, right? Now does that physical apple also exist inside your mind(brain)? Of course not. It is the mental representation of the apple, that is what exists inside your mind. Socrates then states that God is too powerful, too omnipotent, too ubiquitous, and too omniscience, to only exist within the mind, therefore He must also exist outside the mind. This was his argument for the existence of God. There are glaring logical problems with it. These problems are very similar to Aquinas's arguments. Mainly a faulty premise and being a non sequitar. So, please I am all ears. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:
I never claimed to be intelligent, that is a claim that others make ABOUT you. But thank you for the insult. Maybe you would like to address, specifically, some of those ignorant things? Don

I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

Aquinas states that everything that moves must have had something to move it. This basically is the first and second laws of motion. He then concluded that because the Universe had a starting point(beginning), that this beginning was the unmovable force, or prime mover. My apparently ignorant comments, was stating that since the starting point itself was not stationary, NOTHING immovable could exist. Thus, NO IMMOVABLE beginning or starting point. The Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC may give us the new tools and the new knowledge to look past the beginning of our Universe. How do we know for certain that our Universe is not merely part of an expanding Multiverse? We don't know as yet. Also Aquinas states that there can't be endless regressive causalities, and that there must have been a beginning, or a "first cause". Again with this beginning, or starting point. He is simply claiming that if infinite regression is not allowed, all things must have had a beginning. Since no one knows for certain if this beginning did not have a beginning, which had a beginning, etc., it becomes only a philosophical argument from ignorance. Making this leap of faith to affix "God" as the beginning, is nothing more than a label or Gap-filler. Any other Religion can affix their own label or Gap-filler, and theirs would be just as valid.

So instead of insulting and trying to demean me, by claiming that I make ignorant remarks, maybe you might want to explain WHY my remarks are so ignorant? Or, maybe you would like to provide some objective evidence that is based on something other than philosophical convoluted "mumbo jumbo"? Before you simply call Aquinas's proofs scientifically valid. Don

You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying, then you make an argument against your strawman of Aquinas' teachings. Then cry "insults" when you're called on it. Please go back and reread what Byblos has explained to you about why you're in error.

You call yourself "Honest Don", yet you continue to argue against a straw man, even after you've been shown why you're wrong.

Put your big boy pants on, quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument, instead of the straw man you keep arguing against.

I am ignorant about all things that I don't know. But I am not ignorant of all things that I do know. But other than ranting, accusing, and being insulting, could you PLEASE tell me where I am using the principles of Physics as a straw man? Or using any part of my argument as a straw man? Please show me where my argument is incorrect or illogical? It is you that is claiming that my argument is wrong. It is you that is claiming that I am using a straw man. It is you that is claiming I need to put on my "big boy pant" to make an argument that any average high school science student could make.

Where am I going wrong? What is the direct link between an uncaused cause and an immovable mover, and our Universe? Or is this all just a leap of faith? It will take more than just browbeating, to make me convince myself that my argument is wrong, just because you say so. I just don't see any evidence of any direct link. If the argument is simply philosophical, or a matter belief, then no direct link is necessary. But, when you use physical principle(motion, cause and effect) in your argument, please demonstrate a direct link.

Let me give you an example. Socrates stated that things could either exist outside of the mind, or they could exist only inside of the mind. He reasoned that ALL things that exist outside of the mind CAN'T also exist inside of the mind. If you look at an apple on the table, it can only exist in the physical reality, right? Now does that physical apple also exist inside your mind(brain)? Of course not. It is the mental representation of the apple, that is what exists inside your mind. Socrates then states that God is too powerful, too omnipotent, too ubiquitous, and too omniscience, to only exist within the mind, therefore He must also exist outside the mind. This was his argument for the existence of God. There are glaring logical problems with it. These problems are very similar to Aquinas's arguments. Mainly a faulty premise and being a non sequitar. So, please I am all ears. Don

Byblos already explained it all to you, better than I could explain it. I'm not doing it again.

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote: I've read your posts. Clearly, you're an intelligent guy. Ignorant things are what I underlined in your quote.

Aquinas states that everything that moves must have had something to move it. This basically is the first and second laws of motion. He then concluded that because the Universe had a starting point(beginning), that this beginning was the unmovable force, or prime mover. My apparently ignorant comments, was stating that since the starting point itself was not stationary, NOTHING immovable could exist. Thus, NO IMMOVABLE beginning or starting point. The Graviton experiments at CERN and the LHC may give us the new tools and the new knowledge to look past the beginning of our Universe. How do we know for certain that our Universe is not merely part of an expanding Multiverse? We don't know as yet. Also Aquinas states that there can't be endless regressive causalities, and that there must have been a beginning, or a "first cause". Again with this beginning, or starting point. He is simply claiming that if infinite regression is not allowed, all things must have had a beginning. Since no one knows for certain if this beginning did not have a beginning, which had a beginning, etc., it becomes only a philosophical argument from ignorance. Making this leap of faith to affix "God" as the beginning, is nothing more than a label or Gap-filler. Any other Religion can affix their own label or Gap-filler, and theirs would be just as valid.

So instead of insulting and trying to demean me, by claiming that I make ignorant remarks, maybe you might want to explain WHY my remarks are so ignorant? Or, maybe you would like to provide some objective evidence that is based on something other than philosophical convoluted "mumbo jumbo"? Before you simply call Aquinas's proofs scientifically valid. Don

You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying, then you make an argument against your strawman of Aquinas' teachings. Then cry "insults" when you're called on it. Please go back and reread what Byblos has explained to you about why you're in error.

You call yourself "Honest Don", yet you continue to argue against a straw man, even after you've been shown why you're wrong.

Put your big boy pants on, quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument, instead of the straw man you keep arguing against.

I am ignorant about all things that I don't know. But I am not ignorant of all things that I do know. But other than ranting, accusing, and being insulting, could you PLEASE tell me where I am using the principles of Physics as a straw man? Or using any part of my argument as a straw man? Please show me where my argument is incorrect or illogical? It is you that is claiming that my argument is wrong. It is you that is claiming that I am using a straw man. It is you that is claiming I need to put on my "big boy pant" to make an argument that any average high school science student could make.

Where am I going wrong? What is the direct link between an uncaused cause and an immovable mover, and our Universe? Or is this all just a leap of faith? It will take more than just browbeating, to make me convince myself that my argument is wrong, just because you say so. I just don't see any evidence of any direct link. If the argument is simply philosophical, or a matter belief, then no direct link is necessary. But, when you use physical principle(motion, cause and effect) in your argument, please demonstrate a direct link.

Let me give you an example. Socrates stated that things could either exist outside of the mind, or they could exist only inside of the mind. He reasoned that ALL things that exist outside of the mind CAN'T also exist inside of the mind. If you look at an apple on the table, it can only exist in the physical reality, right? Now does that physical apple also exist inside your mind(brain)? Of course not. It is the mental representation of the apple, that is what exists inside your mind. Socrates then states that God is too powerful, too omnipotent, too ubiquitous, and too omniscience, to only exist within the mind, therefore He must also exist outside the mind. This was his argument for the existence of God. There are glaring logical problems with it. These problems are very similar to Aquinas's arguments. Mainly a faulty premise and being a non sequitar. So, please I am all ears. Don

Byblos already explained it all to you, better than I could explain it. I'm not doing it again.

I can't speak or ask any questions directly to Byblos. Besides, he is not the one that is accusing me of using a straw man as an argument("..yet you continue to argue against a straw man"). He is not the one accusing me of being ignorant("You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying"). He is not the one accusing me of being dishonest("You call yourself "Honest Don..."). He is not the one claiming that I have already been proven wrong("..you've been shown why you're wrong"). He is not the one telling me to put my "big boy pants" on("Put your big boy pants on.."). He is not the one accusing me of whining to avoid the argument("quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument"). Are you suggesting that I should redirect all my questions to Byblos, because you can't answer them?

I am not afraid that I might be wrong about anything. I know that I can learn from mistakes as well. Telling me to go back and find my own mistakes, is a very silly and unreasonable request by an adult. Not only does it demonstrate a lack of intellectual responsibility, but it is also a sad attempt to conceal latent anger and true arrogance. Maybe it is you that should put on your big-boy pants and back-up your accusations, rather than try to avoid the argument with threats, insults, and ad hominem attacks.

If you simply don't understand Aquinas's proofs from a scientific perspective, just say so. If you can demonstrate any objective and clear connection between the supernatural and the physical world, then let's hear it. If any of my physical principles are flawed, then tell me. If my logic is flawed, and there IS something that is immovable, or uncaused, then show me(not just give it a label). So far, all I can see is the results of rote learning, and a total absence of critical thinking. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote: Byblos already explained it all to you, better than I could explain it. I'm not doing it again.

I can't speak or ask any questions directly to Byblos.

Of course you can, any time, in a post or in a PM. The reason I stopped responding, here and in the PSR thread especially, is that you did not seem interested in the least in what I had to say.

trulyenlightened wrote:Besides, he is not the one that is accusing me of using a straw man as an argument("..yet you continue to argue against a straw man"). He is not the one accusing me of being ignorant("You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying"). He is not the one accusing me of being dishonest("You call yourself "Honest Don..."). He is not the one claiming that I have already been proven wrong("..you've been shown why you're wrong"). He is not the one telling me to put my "big boy pants" on("Put your big boy pants on.."). He is not the one accusing me of whining to avoid the argument("quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument"). Are you suggesting that I should redirect all my questions to Byblos, because you can't answer them?

What difference does it it make who answers what questions? If you have questions we will try to answer them but to dismiss Aristotle's metaphysics on the basis of his faulty physics is, and I'm not sure how else to phrase it, ignorant at best.

trulyenlightened wrote: If you simply don't understand Aquinas's proofs from a scientific perspective, just say so. If you can demonstrate any objective and clear connection between the supernatural and the physical world, then let's hear it. If any of my physical principles are flawed, then tell me. If my logic is flawed, and there IS something that is immovable, or uncaused, then show me(not just give it a label). So far, all I can see is the results of rote learning, and a total absence of critical thinking.

The underlined is exactly what I was attempting to do when I initially suggested to you to discuss the PSR. By its nature It is a metaphysical type of discussion but again, you dismissed it out of hand as, how did you put it?, mumbo-jumbo. Truth is, at the very foundation of philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular, is logic and reason. Dismissing it will completely undermine science. It will be akin to denying the very tree while cutting the branch you are sitting on.

So if you will indulge me one more time, the mistake you keep making with Aquinas is a mistake practically everyone else makes, including some of the well known philosophers of our time, and yes, many are Christian. The likes of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, to name just 2.

I stated this in many other posts but I will repeat it again, just for clarity. Aquinas' first argument from motion has absolutely nothing to do with time going back to infinity, the big bang, the age of the universe or how it came about. So much so that Aquinas made it an emphatic point to stipulate that it CANNOT be shown through reason alone that the universe had a beginning or time does not stretch back to infinity. So unless you want to claim Aquinas didn't even know his own argument, I would suggest the confusion is on your part, not his.

On the personal side, I have no issue whatsoever with the theory of evolution, be it biological or cosmological. It's another reason why I had no contribution to all your posts, there's just not much I disagree with, save for the silly notion that enough time will just make magic happen (talk about god of the gaps ).

So that's where we are. You want to continue with this fruitless pursuit of posting scientific theories and data well known to us all, please go right ahead, no skin off my back. But if you're ready to have a serious discussion on metaphysics, if for no other reason than to understand better our point of view, let me know.

What Aquinas came up with is genius for making a philosophical point and yet so simple to understand and in the 13th century too. I doubt he knew then that science would one day hundreds of years into the future confirm him correct,yet science has.It is simple but packs a powerful philosophical punch on logic and reason in our world.

1.All things have a cause.
2.All things THAT HAVE a cause are caused by something else.(notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

So simple yet so brilliant.

abelcainsbrother wrote:What Aquinas came up with is genius for making a philosophical point and yet so simple to understand and in the 13th century too. I doubt he knew then that science would one day hundreds of years into the future confirm him correct,yet science has.It is simple but packs a powerful philosophical punch on logic and reason in our world.

1.All things have a cause.
2.All things THAT HAVE a cause are caused by something else.(notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

So simple yet so brilliant.

Your first premise state that, "All things have a cause". You then state the same thing differently, "All things that have a cause, are caused". This is an unnecessary premise, since you have already stated that, "All things 'DO' have a cause". Then you inversely restate the same premise, by stating that all causes are applied only to things that have a cause. But this now becomes a contradiction since, "All things 'DO' have a cause". Then out of nowhere you claim, "That all things are willed into existence". This creates many problems. How do you know this? What evidence supports this premise? The other premises can be supported, but not this one. In other words, what causes, "All things 'to be' willed into existence"? Finally, another unrelated and unsupported premise. "There can be no infinite regression". This is another contradiction. If all things are caused, and there is no infinite regression of causality, then at least ONE thing is not caused. Therefore, "All things are 'not' caused". This argument self-implodes because it uses its two conclusions as part of its premise.

I suppose for those living over 750 years ago, this kind of logic may appear simple and yet brilliant. But for the more evolved critical thinkers of today, it is not. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:What Aquinas came up with is genius for making a philosophical point and yet so simple to understand and in the 13th century too. I doubt he knew then that science would one day hundreds of years into the future confirm him correct,yet science has.It is simple but packs a powerful philosophical punch on logic and reason in our world.

1.All things have a cause.
2.All things THAT HAVE a cause are caused by something else.(notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

So simple yet so brilliant.

Your first premise state that, "All things have a cause". You then state the same thing differently, "All things that have a cause, are caused". This is an unnecessary premise, since you have already stated that, "All things 'DO' have a cause". Then you inversely restate the same premise, by stating that all causes are applied only to things that have a cause. But this now becomes a contradiction since, "All things 'DO' have a cause". Then out of nowhere you claim, "That all things are willed into existence". This creates many problems. How do you know this? What evidence supports this premise? The other premises can be supported, but not this one. In other words, what causes, "All things 'to be' willed into existence"? Finally, another unrelated and unsupported premise. "There can be no infinite regression". This is another contradiction. If all things are caused, and there is no infinite regression of causality, then at least ONE thing is not caused. Therefore, "All things are 'not' caused". This argument self-implodes because it uses its two conclusions as part of its premise.

I suppose for those living over 750 years ago, this kind of logic may appear simple and yet brilliant. But for the more evolved critical thinkers of today, it is not. Don

ACB,

You just misrepresented Aquinas.

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:

RickD wrote: Byblos already explained it all to you, better than I could explain it. I'm not doing it again.

I can't speak or ask any questions directly to Byblos.

Of course you can, any time, in a post or in a PM. The reason I stopped responding, here and in the PSR thread especially, is that you did not seem interested in the least in what I had to say.

trulyenlightened wrote:Besides, he is not the one that is accusing me of using a straw man as an argument("..yet you continue to argue against a straw man"). He is not the one accusing me of being ignorant("You're ignorant about what Aquinas is saying"). He is not the one accusing me of being dishonest("You call yourself "Honest Don..."). He is not the one claiming that I have already been proven wrong("..you've been shown why you're wrong"). He is not the one telling me to put my "big boy pants" on("Put your big boy pants on.."). He is not the one accusing me of whining to avoid the argument("quit playing the "poor me" card, and deal with the actual argument"). Are you suggesting that I should redirect all my questions to Byblos, because you can't answer them?

What difference does it it make who answers what questions? If you have questions we will try to answer them but to dismiss Aristotle's metaphysics on the basis of his faulty physics is, and I'm not sure how else to phrase it, ignorant at best.

trulyenlightened wrote: If you simply don't understand Aquinas's proofs from a scientific perspective, just say so. If you can demonstrate any objective and clear connection between the supernatural and the physical world, then let's hear it. If any of my physical principles are flawed, then tell me. If my logic is flawed, and there IS something that is immovable, or uncaused, then show me(not just give it a label). So far, all I can see is the results of rote learning, and a total absence of critical thinking.

The underlined is exactly what I was attempting to do when I initially suggested to you to discuss the PSR. By its nature It is a metaphysical type of discussion but again, you dismissed it out of hand as, how did you put it?, mumbo-jumbo. Truth is, at the very foundation of philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular, is logic and reason. Dismissing it will completely undermine science. It will be akin to denying the very tree while cutting the branch you are sitting on.

So if you will indulge me one more time, the mistake you keep making with Aquinas is a mistake practically everyone else makes, including some of the well known philosophers of our time, and yes, many are Christian. The likes of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, to name just 2.

I stated this in many other posts but I will repeat it again, just for clarity. Aquinas' first argument from motion has absolutely nothing to do with time going back to infinity, the big bang, the age of the universe or how it came about. So much so that Aquinas made it an emphatic point to stipulate that it CANNOT be shown through reason alone that the universe had a beginning or time does not stretch back to infinity. So unless you want to claim Aquinas didn't even know his own argument, I would suggest the confusion is on your part, not his.

On the personal side, I have no issue whatsoever with the theory of evolution, be it biological or cosmological. It's another reason why I had no contribution to all your posts, there's just not much I disagree with, save for the silly notion that enough time will just make magic happen (talk about god of the gaps ).

So that's where we are. You want to continue with this fruitless pursuit of posting scientific theories and data well known to us all, please go right ahead, no skin off my back. But if you're ready to have a serious discussion on metaphysics, if for no other reason than to understand better our point of view, let me know.

Thank you for your invitation. I do agree that logic and reason had to come from somewhere. But why philosophy and the metaphysical? Couldn't logic and reason be only the evolved results of our physical experiences in our early struggle for survival? I'm sure that the natives surviving in the jungles of old Borneo, are not pondering over existential reality, or the true meaning of life, purpose and essence. In fact it is only when the mind not distracted, or totally engaged, that we can self-reflect at all. Although I am certainly willing to engage in any topic that require no evidence, no proofs, no right or wrong, and no practical applications, I feel that my expertise in this area is only limited to common sense and intuition. Although I am confused that you claim to agree with most of my perspective, and then claim the metaphysical as a serious discussion? Also, I'm confused over your not understanding the significance of how time allows for small changes to become more pronounced changes. Or why time is necessary to allow for trial and error, genetic variation, speciation, etc. Given enough time almost anything is possible. Although time is relative, it is still a dimensional property of our Universe, not a gap-filler.

The mistake that you make is that Aquinas did not have the scientific tools that we have today. He could not use the CMB radiation, or the hubble telescope to verify that the Universe had a beginning and is expanding. He did not have quantum physics to verify a quantum gravity and a quantum vacuum, to hypothesize how the Universe may have started. His premises are based entirely on inductive reasoning. We are seriously talking about apples and oranges. Maybe you can give me a preview, or an example of how any metaphysical argument on any topic would end? Don

abelcainsbrother wrote:What Aquinas came up with is genius for making a philosophical point and yet so simple to understand and in the 13th century too. I doubt he knew then that science would one day hundreds of years into the future confirm him correct,yet science has.It is simple but packs a powerful philosophical punch on logic and reason in our world.

1.All things have a cause.
2.All things THAT HAVE a cause are caused by something else.(notice that this only applies to things that have a cause)
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

So simple yet so brilliant.

Sorry ACB but you got it all wrong.