Thomas Aquinas's Five Proofs

1. First Mover S1. Objects are in motion Technically, all objects are moving at quantum physical level. Furthermore, then most objects are in motion. S2. If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something else. First, prove something always may have been moving. The Universe must have started at some point, even if it does go in cycles. Therefore, there is a point where nothing was in existence. Since things being moved are only in potentiality to that toward which they are in motion, whereas those things causing motion in others are able to do so only insofar as they possess the act toward which they move others. Motion is simply the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality Nothing can be moved unless by something in actuality. S3. There cannot be an infinite chain of movers as the universe is finite. Your argument is false because there has to be a first mover to set the universe into this cycle. Something cannot move itself. The Universe cannot set itself into this cycle as you state. Something had to start. (Even Hindu's believe this, there are cycles but, something began the universe's cycle). S4. There must be a first, unmoved, mover Not at all, this unmoved mover is necessary for the Universe to even be in existence. Furthermore, it is not a contradiction something which does not move can still move something from "potentiality to actuality" C. God exists .....It's a label as an expression of God. My God is the being that created the universe. Therefore, this is completely accurate. Furthermore, only a God would have the power to create the universe. 2. Causality S1. Some events cause other events S2. If an event happens it must be caused by something outside itself. Your talking about supernova's here. There are two ways a supernova forms. First, binary star systems cause one star to accreted matter from the system. After accumulating to much matter it collapses in on itself creating a supernova. Second, the end of the stars life cycle occurs and if the iron core is large enough it collapses in on itself creating a supernova. (1) In the first case, other stars are causing it's death. In the second case, the creator of the star (and no a star does not create itself) made it such that after x years it dies. The cause of the stars death is its creation by an outside force. S3. no infinite cause/effect I believe I already explained this. Even in a cyclical universe it must have started at some point or the universe would not exist. S4. first un-caused, cause My opponent has to prove there is more than one cause to the universe otherwise their objection to this point is irrelevant. C. God exists Self-explanatory, the first cause in the universe has to be something which supersedes all aka God. 3. Contingency S1. Contingent things Yes, something depends on others to exist. You only exist because your parents procreated. S2. Each contingent thing has a time when it does not exist. Your objection contradicts itself. Something which is omnipresent exists in everywhere and therefore, in every time. If it exists everywhere, it cannot be contingent. S3. Time I do not understand what your objecting to here. Please clarify. S4. Past How is it false. You never provided an explanation. S5. Empty Until the conclusion you must operate under the premise God does not exist....the entire argument together is what argues for God's existence. S6. Contingency=nonexistence I believe I have explained the cyclical universe enough. S7. The world is not empty. S8. There must exist a being that is not contingent. ...There must be something which is not dependent on something else. Or there would be nothing. C. This is God Whether or not it's labeling it is still true. Besides why can't a magic leprechaun be called God? 4. Greatness S1. Objects have properties to a greater or lesser extent. Whether or not it is vague is irrelevant. An object does not have space or time or sound. It lives inside space or time. It may emit sound. It may have color (more color vs less color) or ideas (more ideas vs less ideas) or logic (more or less logical). S2. Lesser vs greater extent All properties have some form of magnitude. And if you do not like it why did you accept? S3. Being with all properties You have not answered the question of what defines the maximum degree? C. God exists. There must be a source of all greatness in the world. If something is great to the maximum possible degree what better word is there than God? 5. From design S1. Some have minds others do not I do not see what the rebuttal is here but, I'll provide an empirical example. Magma flows beneath the earth. Magma does not have a mind, it does not have intelligent thoughts as it is not alive. Lava has a purpose to move tectonic plates, create volcanoes, etc. S2. Object acts for end An object without a mind.....do not have a mind..... C. God exists My opponent is making a mockery of this debate. Rationally no way to disprove God. Combination. I am merrily stating you cannot disprove the concept of God because rationally God must exist. Furthermore, you have basically dropped this point. And why don't you just retype your "dis-proof" here or even copy and paste it? Thomas Aquinas's proofs are valid, as I have shown. My opponent has not made a valid argument to disprove these proofs. I have shown someone with rationally has to believe a God exists (dropped) and I have defended my own (rather Aquinas's) points. My opponent is making a mockery of me and Thomas Aquinas. I suggest that they read up on ethical debating. And I hope they know psychology is a science and cognitive science is a science. Sources 1. http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...