Evidence for God from Science

What is your opinion on this?

I've been reading what the "other side" has to say concerning this. A pretty good read:
http://atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/ ... pologetics

The 5 arguments are pretty solid, and usually very misunderstood. I haven't seen a refutation that wasn't a fallacy or stemming from ignorance over what Aquinas is saying. Can't read the link so can't give you an opinion about it. Posted mainly to point you to Jacs book which I think you'd enjoy and is informative. Don't have the link, so maybe someone will jump in and post it? Rickd?

I have yet to read ONE correct refutation of Aquina's 5 arguments.
I have read many that misinterpret his arguments and create false one that hen they go on and dispell.
That is, of course, not the same thing as actually refuting the correct argument.
A very common example is how Aquinas states that ALL things that COME INTO BEING have a cause ( which they do).
The typical argument goes:
A) not all things have a cause
B) what cause God then?

Not that the rebuttals do NOT address what Aquinas says because he does NOT say ALL things have a cause, he states that ALL things that COME INTO BEING, have a cause.
A HUGE difference.

RickD wrote:Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is

What a boring read that is. Not because the content of it is boring, but because of how the author addresses the reader. I'm having a feeling the author thinks I'm retarded(probably because he repeats himself and I just got that impression). Can't wait to get to the philosophical explaining of DS, I'm at Biblical now.

IceMobster wrote:

RickD wrote:Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is

What a boring read that is. Not because the content of it is boring, but because of how the author addresses the reader. I'm having a feeling the author thinks I'm retarded(probably because he repeats himself and I just got that impression). Can't wait to get to the philosophical explaining of DS, I'm at Biblical now.

It's because he's trying to simplify(as much as possible) a very difficult subject.

It's written for the layman like myself. And it's the first time I've been able to understand the subject. I don't think it could've been written any better.(at the risk of inflating someone's head).

But seriously, I call it like I see it. Finish reading the book before you judge it. If it helps you understand divine simplicity, then the author has done his job.

IceMobster wrote:

RickD wrote:Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is

What a boring read that is. Not because the content of it is boring, but because of how the author addresses the reader. I'm having a feeling the author thinks I'm retarded(probably because he repeats himself and I just got that impression). Can't wait to get to the philosophical explaining of DS, I'm at Biblical now.

If that bored you then you must be more than ready for the full-blown philosophical argument. Here's the abridged version. After you read it, please come back and summarize it in laymen's terms so we can all understand it.

P.S. My favorite part is Constituent Versus Nonconstituent Ontology.

Byblos wrote:

IceMobster wrote:

RickD wrote:Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is

What a boring read that is. Not because the content of it is boring, but because of how the author addresses the reader. I'm having a feeling the author thinks I'm retarded(probably because he repeats himself and I just got that impression). Can't wait to get to the philosophical explaining of DS, I'm at Biblical now.

If that bored you then you must be more than ready for the full-blown philosophical argument. Here's the abridged version. After you read it, please come back and summarize it in laymen's terms so we can all understand it.

P.S. My favorite part is Constituent Versus Nonconstituent Ontology.

As I said, I'm not onto philosophical parts yet. Calm down, just a first impression. <3