Please disprove to me St. Thomas Aquinas's 5 Proofs for God's existance.?

Question

I know they are a few years old (more like a few centuries) but we're basically focusing on the first three, particulary on the "prime mover" proof. I call it "proof" but not meaning that God could be proven or disproven. If anyone here can explain our universal existance out of nothing, or if they can prove that the universe has existed for ever, then they are indeed a smart man.

I know they are a few years old (more like a few centuries) but we're basically focusing on the first three, particulary on the "prime mover" proof. I call it "proof" but not meaning that God could be proven or disproven. If anyone here can explain our universal existance out of nothing, or if they can prove that the universe has existed for ever, then they are indeed a smart man.

http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm

Answer 1

"Aquinas felt that the existence of God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof."

Or were you referring to:


"Concerning the nature of God, Aquinas felt the best approach, commonly called the via negativa, is to consider what God is not. This led him to propose five positive statements about the divine qualities:[18]

God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
God is infinite. That is, God is not finite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same.""

Answer 2

Here we go, point by point.

1. The "unmoved mover" argument. We know that there is a motion in the world; whatever is in motion is moved by another thing; this other thing also must be moved by something; to avoid an infinite regression, we must posit a "first mover," which is God.

Answer-Science has shown that all things, including the universe itself, are in motion. The proof is based on a false assumption.

2. The "nothing is caused by itself" argument. For example, a table is brought into being by a carpenter, who is caused by his parents. Again, we cannot go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause, which is God.

Answer: This argument fiats God without first looking to other options. The concepts of evolution were many years after St. Thomas so his logic is, yet again, built on faulty assumptions.

3. The cosmological argument. All physical things, even mountains, boulders, and rivers, come into being and go out of existence, no matter how low they last. Therefore, since time is infinite, there must be some time at which none of these things existed. But if there were nothing at that point in time, how could there be anything at all now, since nothing cannot cause anything? Thus, there must always have been at least one necessary thing that is eternal, which is God.

Answer: First law of thermodynamics, "Matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed." Again, he fiats God to explain what his limited science can't.

4. Objects in the world have differing degrees of qualities such as goodness. But speaking of more or less goodness makes sense only by comparison with what is the maximum goodness, which is God.

Answer: This argument isn't even logical, much less right.

5. The teleological argument (argument from design). Things in the world move toward goals, just as the arrow does not move toward its goal except by the archer's directing it. Thus, there must be an intelligent designer who directs all things to their goals, and this is God.

Answer: Again, he fiats God to explain that which science can explain with evidence. The initial engine of creation was a massive singularity reaching a critical mass and exploding. The resulting ejection of matter became over the next few trillion years the universe we live in today. Through a progression long enough that volumes are written on the topic, we came to be. Each step in the progression was tiny, almost imperceptible until looked at on the scale of cosmological time.

There we go. Five proofs up, five proofs shot down. All without breaking a sweat.

Answer 3

Please, basically it's the Prime mover argument, first cause argument, contingency argument, argument from degree, and the lamest argument ever, the argument from design.

Modern physics has a field day with this lame crap.

1,2,3 make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god is somehow immune to this false infinite regress that the arguments create. Even if we allow for such a supposition, there is no reason to assume this terminator has the qualities of a god, much less the christian god. Since the rest of the universe can be defined in terms of natural processes, it is logical to assume there are natural processes at work here too. It is more illogical to assume some supernatural being.

argument 4, degree, is a really strange one. It states something like 'humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness does not rest in us. So there must be some standard, and we call that god". I don't see how this is even an argument, replace 'good' with 'smelly' and the argument makes as much sense.

the argument from -apparent- design died with Darwin and Mendel.

Answer 4

These all hold no water and I'm not going to spend the time to explain them all. Here's something you probably didn't know about. Scientists have witnessed electron and proton pairs manifest themselves out of nothingness in a vacuum ,requiring NO energy or DIRECTION. So if the basic parts that make up atoms, which make up everything else can CREATE themselves, how can it be true that everything needs a creator? Have you ever considered that the Universe always existed. There is one thing that always needs a creator and that is ,Gods. Humans have been creating them since the dawn of time.

Answer 5

1) Nothing can move itself.
a) Therefore God cannot move without an outside force.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself.)
a) Therefore God cannot exist.
3) Not every being can be contingent.
a) God is contingent upon our belief in him.
4) Bunch of rehashed Platonic Shapes of Things bullshit.
a) Considered a false argument by everyone.
5) Watchmaker argument
a) Laid to rest with the publication of Origin of Species.

Try taking a physics class and harassing your Professor with this antiquated pre-Newtonian, pre-Galilean, pre-Eisteinian bullshit.

You'll flunk for sure.

Answer 6

as an atheist i have no problem with one though three except that using the word god invokes all of the supernatural things generally with god. but i am okay with one through three.

i dont see his fourth argument addresses the issue but i am OK with it.

so far there is nothing here that is religious or supernatural in any way. scientists would just use different terminology.

the fifth assumes that everything is designed but offers no evidence for this. it may or may not be true but neither science or Aquinas indicates it.

Answer 7

Don't expect many good answers - why didn't you cite them, or better still, reproduce them. (Citing is pretty basic stuff.)

Re. Add. Dtls. This is likely the single most basic fact is all cosmology... The Big Bang Singularity was the antithesis of "nothing" - it was *everything*! It comprised *ALL* the matter/energy in the Universe. ALL. That is, there was nothing to "create"!

"Out of nothing" displays *profound* lack of knowledge of a subject you yourself chose to raise. Googling (or texts) can go a long, long way.

Answer 8

Too long to do here. Interestingly, Kung in his huge book Does God Exist?, does not even mention them, although there are other references to Aquinas. See:

Answer 9

Why?
He was unable to prove that god exists (let's face it, this is the same idiot that "proved" that animals have no soul) in all 5 of his diatribes. They ALL proceed from a false assumption; that god is real.
NOT ONE of them give anything even remotely resembling proof. Only more "faith" and "belief".
Someone needs to learn what proof and evidence really means.

Answer 10

I am too busy dealing with the FSM's planting of all that so-called evolutionary evidence, to hide marks of Creation by His Noodley Appendages.

RAmen!