Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

The Fool says: all right have it your way. I was trying to help you out. A Fools investigation The Fool: knows how to move it, move it. 1. First Mover: S1. Objects are in motion. Fool: False not all objects are in motion. S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else. Fool: rejection, something may have been always moving. And we don’t know it. S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite. The fool says: The infinite is beyond the capacity of human reason. Maybe the world goes in cycles like the Hindu’s and Buddhist say. S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover Fool: and that which is unmoved and a mover is a contradiction. (M&~M) C. God exists. The fool says: God is a physical symbol expression that represents a concept of god. To simply just label things god when it’s convenient just means you are labeling things god when we can’t explain something it. To not have an explanation is to be ignorant of how something works. That is you are just plopping the name god onto something you don’t understand. That is not an explanation at all. That is harmful to society because it prevents us from trying to figure out what really happened. The fool: This argument causes me to pee. 2. Causality S1. Some events cause other events The Fool: so what? S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself (an event cannot cause itself) The Fool: false a star can blow up when it is low on energy. Therefore this cause is within. S3. There can be no infinite cause/effect chains as the universe is finite. The Fool: Could be cyclical. S4. There must be a first uncaused, cause The Fool: Why is that, maybe there is only a first recognized cause there is a lot we don’t know. C. God exists The fool; As concept in our minds, but that all we know for sure. The Fool: Depends on foolery 3. Contingency S1. Contingent things exist. Contingent being defined as dependant on for existance (1) The Fool: do you something depends on others to exist. But it could just be that we recognize something. S2. Each contigent thing has a time when it does not exist (contingent things are not omnipresent) The Fool: Maybe they are and we just don’t recognize them S3. If everything was contingent there would be a time when nothing exists (we will call this "empty time") The Fool: maybe that includes time as well. Lol. Time must exist still no? S4. This empty time would have been in the past The Fool: Just plain false. S5. If the world was empty at one time it would be empty forever (conservation principle) The Fool: Obvious not if a god could pop up out of nothing. S6. If everything were contigent, then nothing would exist in the world. The fool: false. again could be cyclical S7. Obviously the world is not empty (S1) S8. So there must exist a being that is not contigent. The fool: No more then there must as there must not. C. This is God. The fool: this is labeling and it can also called be a magic leprechaun or anything magic. The Fool: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Properties coming in Degrees S1. Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents The fool: The extremely vague there is space time, color, sound, idea logical and the list goes on. S2. If an object has a property to a lesser extent, there must exist some object with this property to a maximum possible degree. The fool: There are properties which are not that of magnitude. When it this going to end? S3. So there is a being with all properties to the maximum possible degree The Fool: There could me many equal maximum. Also you speak of no property in particular. C. Therefore, God exists and so does non-sense. The fool: you got me on that one. ;) The fool: has design his intelligent crystal ball for it also have purpose. (To Throw at Sophist) 5. From design S1. Among all objects that act for an end, some have minds, others do not (some have intelligence others do not have intelligence) The fool: they day you are able to jump out of you own mind to know this, I will be true. Then again you would be out of your mind. S2. An object that acts for an end, but itself does not have a mind, must have been created by a being with a mind. The Fool: For we could just say something is an object with a mind. Puff! C. Therefore, Santa Clause exist. Rationally there is no way to disprove God. Here is combination of Aquinas's cosmological arguments: If someone is worried about a disprove it suggest that you using ignorance as a defense. IF you want to know a way to dis-prove just look at my proof of the non-existence of god debate: If you want to continue.. Whatever it won’t take long to put the Nail in the coffin. Please just forfeit and regroup your ideas to together for another time. If Aquinas Proof was valid we would all use it. Nobody doesn’t want a god, we just think it can’t make sense.. Put the name god on something we don’t understand doesn’t make it suddenly make sense. You have just relabelled non-sense, with a different physical sound. Lastly science is not only physical we have psychology and cognitive science. So the rest will fail anyway. I tried to fix up you argument for you because the one you had was impossible to defend.