Dr. Feser: Aristotelian proof of God
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Apparently any of these supposed god ideas deeply cares that you "believe in him" but very carefully hides the evidence and ends up causing 90-99+ percent of all people that ever lived get it all very very wrong.
I wasted a few minutes listening to this nonsense.... and you are happy to defend this nonsense??
@zenoview
You may not be aware of this, but it is entirely possible to postulate a universe that doesn't require a prime mover - that time and space as we humans perceive them, are not reality. Where would your god be then?
Keith
I don't believe in any gods.
@Jon the Catholic: "Unmoved may mean two things:"
No. Unmoved is a passive participle. It means only "not being moved by physical force," or "unaffected emotionally".
"The table was unmoved when the fly landed on it."
"He was unmoved by the tragic event."
Something that is unmoved is always at rest, unchanging. Creation is motion. Creation requires motivation. So an unmoved thing cannot be a creator or a first cause.
This comment is neither here nor there
@Jon the Catholic: "This comment is neither here nor there"
No. It's here. Do you have an answer?
Creation implies change in the creator as well as the creation. How can an eternal, unmoved, unchanging thing create anything?
You're starting the point of assuming God exists then deriving conclusions about Him. We can argue along those lines but we'll never get anywhere.
How about trying to see what we have current and know are facts - like a universe that began to exist (though some might contest this), things (planets) are moving, objective moral values... Then from those premises (and others we know), we try to reason out what conclusions we can. You see where I'm going with this?
Really, the arguments for God have been stated more times than I can count. A fast way to go about this would be, what argument do you think is the best one you've heard so far AND what's wrong with it?
Jon, you said, "How about trying to see what we have current and know are facts"
I think you should amend that to read, "...what we have current and *WHAT I SAY* are facts"
How about you answer my question about which argument for the existence of God is the best you’ve heard so far. And what’s wrong with it.
From logic, you have to accept the conclusions from certain premises if they follow logically GIVEN the premises are true. So you have your work cut out for you. Which argument for God’s existence (which you consider the most appealing) has fallacies sprinkled in them?
"Arguments for God:The Best Of" available now at Walmart in the $5 bin on aisle 12.
Euler's formula
Fine. I'll humor you. What's wrong with it? - This was the second part of my question.
Well it isn't exactly convincing, just peculiar.
Right? Okay. Glad we agree.
Pages