Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

A Fools riddle: Objects that have mind? It may be completely the opposite and that all objects are within a framework of mind, for we know for certain that our minds exist. By the cogito “I think therefore I am” Descartes. But I don’t know for sure if physical objects exist. For we me tricked by our senses. Sometimes we see illusions. Secondly maybe this is all a dream and one day you will wake up, to something else. (Maybe on a hill) How do you know for sure? If there is no mind there is not external world to perceive, on the other hand if we our senses to the external perception were cut, we would still exist, for we would still have memories and imagination and reflection and so forth, but it would be pretty lonely. Many things exist that we cannot see physically like radiation or magnetic waves. Must of what we think is external is really in your mind. That is things like cause and effect are in the mind but not necessarily in the world. For example we may see on a pool table that one ball moves and hits the other, as we see this more and more we see it we recognize it as cause and effect. Right, but all you really seen is one ball move and then the next, where is the cause and effect. Furthermore we eventually notice something moving under the table, and we discover it is a man with two magnets, and the balls really had metal cores, and it is this Sophist which was moving the balls the whole time… YOU HAVE BEEN FOOLED!!!! For where oh where is your cause and effect now… ;) For it was never in the object but in the MIND!! Your mind places it in your physical atmosphere as a temporary explanation, a theory, to explain the physical world.. But when it is shown wrong it takes its back!!!! That is the physical world is theoretical, But the mind is for sure. That is objects are seen because the mind puts them together from information we don’t understand. That is everything you see as physical has been conceptualized into order for you to see it that way. That which appears random is unorganized information. Your vision doesn’t represent the world as its entirety. We can’t see many things. Even when we claim to know electrons we never see them. We infer them from mental calculations, we create things which can detect what we don’t see but remember you could never leave your mind. We thing math is in the external world because we write it down. But we don’t realize the ideas are from the mind. That is why math and logic is always perfect because it is only representing our own mental framework, from which it has been organized. So it can’t be wrong. ;) The mind uses these principles to conceptualize outer information, that is why we can apply it to external things because that is the way it been organized for us in our minds. That is why people think it somehow exists externally. Remember what I am saying is Fresh From the Hill. That is brand new knowledge. One of the reason we have illusion is because your mind has made a false judgment on what was actually there. To be called a proof it must be certain, So far the argument that has been given depends on a lot of thing in the universe (summation of all things) that we are not absolutely certain about. All these factor cast doubt on all your arguments. Therefore it could never be a proof.. A Fools Account The fool says: all explanations not equal. A useful explanation: is an explanation which can be used to increase the efficiency of decisions based on its ability to predict. That is the best useful explanation is that which accurately explains how something works. This gives us the ability to predict the situation at hand and to fix or manipulate it when desired. For example: understanding how matter works give us the power to predict change and manipulate matter for our advantage. So we may say a useful explanation gives us Power (the ability to control.) A harmful Explanation: is an explanation which prevents us from gaining power over the world. We may also say it hold us back. That it is an oppressing factor on progress. 2. For example: When we treat a contradicting principle as an explanation. One is example is to say that random is and explanation for something, when really things appear random when we don’t understand something. This is popular in many sciences a good example is random mutations in evolution, where random really is a lack of and explanation not an explanation. This prevents us from investigation because we think that is an answer then it is really a lack of an answer. That is it promotes ignorance as explanations. A test is see what kind you are talking about is to see what you could predict by it. A good measure to see if is not and explanation is when you answer to something always refers to one things over and over. Why that is the further back we go in time, all civilization explains things in god or spirits. And the more we progress the less and less get attributed to gods. As a matter of fact god can’t be a good measure of progress. In the sense that if we could explain some without god then explanation has improved. A Recreational explanation: explanation we may use to feel better but can never be demonstrated to be true or predict but rather as entertainment or therapeutic. "I don’t know" is a reasonable and intelligible answer, that doesn’t mean we won’t find out in the future. Let’s say the following: The beginning of the Universe is “??Unknown??” But we want to explain it so we insert the name GOD: Thus the beginning of the Universe is “GOD” only makes GOD synonymous with “??Unknown??” That doesn’t’ explain anything. This is just he an appeal to Ignorance. A logical fallacy! God as an answer is just laziness, because we don’t have an answer. And can be harmful because it prevents people from trying to figure out a real explanation. Therefore the big bang is a better explanation because it is only a temporary theory and thus it can evolve upon new information. God can’t. God explanations do not PROGRESS. They hold us down. They are Oppressing. The fool: the fool shits on Oppressing Ideas. Another problem is there is no criterion to distinguish God in this case from magic. It is just as good as anything is magic element; magic monkeys, magic leprechauns or magic x. And of course don’t forget the magic flying spaghetti monster. That is all we have to add is magic. And it is just a good as an explanation. The problem is that things only appear as magic when we don’t understand them. So we are right back at the same problem. A casual Fool’s version Proof of the non-existence of god (simplified) To have faith in something is to expect that something to be true/exist. For let that something be the content of a belief/faith Let x be the content of the belief: Let F be expectation: Tautology: A=A Therefore existence=existence Thus a contradiction is false. If the only criteria for the existence of x also contradicts x’s then existence based on such a criteria is FALSE. Therefore x is false. For let F=faith let G=God let E= existence Logical form of argument: EG Let’s assume God exist. 2. EG→F Since existence of god depends on the criteria of Faith 3. F→~EG And it is equally true by faith that god does not exist 4. ~EG A faith based does not exist 1&4 (EG&~EG) Therefore a God which depends on faith alone has FALSE existence. QED again!! The Fool says: Nothing follows from expectation alone but expectation alone. The Fool: all I need to show is that his proof is not 100% the burden is on my partner.The Fool.... in your closet