Can you disprove theese 5 proofs of God's existence?

Question

The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm

Of course it's Saint Thomas Aquinas.
I think it's much simpler; Atheists don't belive in God because they find it more convenient not to.

Answer 1

'fire is like the maximum heat' ? For real?

Like a campfire? What about a nuclear reaction inside a star? There is no such thing as perfect heat or ultimate heat.

These are such bad arguments and they have been refuted long ago.

We see things that lack intelligence act for an end? No we don't.

What rubbish. Read Dawkin's God delusion. I'm not going to waste time refuting such awful arguments.

OK, I'll do the 4th one the argument from gradation.

Humans can only be ugly and retarded in relation to a perfectly ugly super-retarded being. We call this being God. Wow, great argument.

Answer 2

Yes.

1. This is Aristotle's "unmoved mover" argument. It relies on a notion of physics that claims that the natural state of all objects is at rest. This conflicts with general relativity, in which the natural state of all objects is temporal motion which is deflected through spatial directions because of space-time curvature. Basically, this argument doesn't work because it uses a bad notion of physics.

2. This is the "First Cause" argument, attributable to Aquinas (or possibly Augustine). It simply defines the initial cause as "God." However, such a God would almost certainly not be equivalent to the Christian God (or any other preconceived notion of God). Additionally, there is absolutely no reason to assume that the initial cause had a will, or even had the potential for thought.

3. This is based on a misunderstanding of the accepted interpretations of modal logic. It also relies on the assumption that at some point there was nothing in existence. Additionally, it redefines God as "that which is necessarily necessary." Again, there is no reason to assume that "that which is necessarily necessary" is at all similar to the notion of God that one is trying to prove.

4. This is Plato's "forms" argument. It assumes that predicates require ontological commitments. They don't.

5. The teleological argument assumes a preconceived end toward which all things are moving. This assumption is wrong. Several things move cyclically, towards no end.

Answer 3

1) time is infinite so your little chain can and must go on forever. beside who set your god in motion?
2) your second argument is the same as your first so my answer is the same.
3) all of your 'proofs' thus far have three major flaws, time is infinite, god had to come from somewhere and, matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed it just is...
4) four really bothers me when people blame god and the devil for goodness or the lack there of it discredits the spirit.
5) the alternate option is that we look around and realize that the natural bodies that fail in design die out and we are left with only the best; this we call the natural process
there a thirteen year old just beat your divine logic... no one can prove the exsistance of god its something that we have to feel, so have faith but dont pretnd you have evidence

Answer 4

Pretty much all of your long-winded question can be explained by the Laws of Physics. Tell me though where do you see evidence of God in the modern world? California wildfires? Ongoing war and famine? Horrible birth defects? The rise of autism and other terrible childhood diseases? Increasing amounts of terrorism? Global warming and other ecological disasters? The horrible never ending poverty and plight of so many Africans?

Where is the hand of some benevolent omnipotent Divine Being? Or is he just sleeping on the job? I'm agnostic, but I think Atheists have alot better argument than True Believers do.

Answer 5

Oh, you mean the "Prime Mover" and other arguments from Aquinas? They've been debunked for quite some time. Look up Immanuel Kant.

In short though, the fallacies of the old Aquinas arguments come down to 1) false assumptions about physics taken from pre-Newtonian times, 2) attributing things to "God" that could just as easily be attributed to some other entity that has nothing to do with all the other things attributed to God (human reward/punishment, etc.), (for example Kant showed the "perfection" argument could be used to prove the unicorn too) and 3) circular logic by exempting "God" from certain proposed conditions.

Personally, one of the better written counter-arguments to these that I've seen was in the book "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.

Answer 6

These are all utterly laughable.
They all proceed thusly :I believe god exists, so I'll make up some crap about his existence and justify it with circular logic.

Look here is a question you won't be able to answer. If god created the universe, where did the materiel come from? Matter cannot be destroyed or created. It can only be transformed. If it already existed, then he's not a creator. He merely moved it around.
If it came from within himself, then again, we see no creation but a transference of matter.

So, which is it?

Edit, having now read the answers above mine, all I can ask you is "does it hurt to have been so thoroughly b^*$@ slapped like that? LOL!"

Answer 7

After all of that , nothing has been proven . Whenever anything is hard to understand , or has still not been figured out by our scientists , it has to be "god" .
If you want to prove "god" , tell us , in detail how god does these impossible things.
Your explanation goe back to the most primitive. If it's not thoroughly undestood , it must be some kind of a "god" .
Sorry , you have to come up with some real proof , not supposition .

Answer 8

Aesity means self-existence. Aesity explains the metaphysical nature of God as a purely self-existent being that exists in complete actuality. God is not a being that is created by another god; neither does God create himself into existence. Rather, God has always existed as an unchanging, completely actualized being.


God has his Being of himself and to himself such that he is Absolute being and the definition of existence.
Since God’s essence is his nature and God’s existence is the same as his essence it follows that God is existence.

Answer 9

I don’t know about disproving but may I humbly suggest you credit Thomas Aquinas for this lest you become guilty of the sin of plagiarism. Read up on Paul Tillich’s conception of existence and David Friedrich Strauss’ New Testament interpretation. That might help.

Answer 10

The five arguments of Aquinas? That's it?

They fall apart on the grounds of their own assumptions, apart from anything else.
"We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end"
Really? A wave landing on a beach has a purpose? It really wants to smooth out that sand?
Not unless you pre-assume, presume, it!
Paley's "invisible hand" has an alternate explanation these days.