"Aquinas and Paley prove God's existance with their arguments" do you agree?

Question

If yes why?
If no why?

Answer 1

No one has proven the exhistance of any god.

Answer 2

Here's a few reasons Paley's argument is flawed.
1. The watchmaker's father:

Just like all watches have watchmakers, so do all watchmakers have fathers. Therefore, with the watchmaker analogy, god has a father. Who is the father of god? And who is the father of the father? And so forth. This leads to an endless series that I pointed out before.

2. Boat maker makes boat, watchmakers makes watch:

Let's begin with the story describing that you had to go to a friend's house for a party, but I was delayed. Suddenly you found a boat. Would you assume that a watchmaker made that boat? Of course not, you would assume a boat maker did. Therefore, according to the analogy, created life must have a life maker, the sun a sun maker and snowflakes a snowmaker. This implies that there are several creators in the world, responsible for all kinds of creation (not one god!).

3. Watches out of nothing:

The things (components) used by the watchmaker to make watches (or component for boat maker to make boat) already exists, but the theists claim that their god created things ex nihilo, from nothing. So the analogy is false here, too.

4. False analogy:

The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

a. A watch is complex
b. A watch has a watchmaker
c. The universe is also complex
d. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker

The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:

a. Leaves are complex structures
b. Leaves grow on trees
c. Money bills are also complex structures
d. Therefore money grow on trees (which, according to the idiom, they don't)
For a rebutal of Aquinas's arguement look no further then here.
http://www.2think.org/hii/svtcata.shtml
There has never been any proof that God exists. That is why it is called faith. Such circular arguements will never convince people who don't believe in God.

Answer 3

No. Aquinas was laughed out of the Academic establishment by the 19th century, and Paley's argument is worse than useless.

Answer 4

To be truthful no longer something proves that God exists. there is not any requirement for information, to actual have faith or believe in God, in my view. investigate this...do you have faith in atoms? have you ever seen an atom? have you ever heard of the ability in the back of an atom bomb? shall we positioned it this form, maximum folk of humanity will have faith what they are taught. however the thinkers among us will understand, purely as Aquinas and Paley the two have, that categorical organisms exist in this earth that defy any scientific reasoning and consequently are 'marvelous' of their life. The human physique itself is a miracle in case you learn it and contemplate over texts. I consider their arguments which you will discover 'information' of God's life by way of witnessing unexplainable phenomena in the international around us. the only logical answer is that God exists. One important flaw in darwinian theory is that it will rely on something quickly present day, or performing out of no longer something. This something is refferred to as possibly a single-celled organism. the problem is...the place did this single-celled organism come from. At this degree, darwinism contradicts itself and relies upon the thinkers mind's eye to 'conjure' up an answer to it. there is the variety of component as evolution, little doubt approximately that. whether it does not clarify the beginning of species, because it famously claims.

Answer 5

No, Aquinas' and Paley's arguments are based on false premises and invalid assumptions.

Answer 6

Paley's watch theory has lots of flaws and Aquinas theory is like what came first the chicken or the egg? theory is a question in itself. so my answer is no.

Answer 7

I am not sure what their arguments were, but I would say almost anything proves God.

Evolution was created by the illumanti because they wanted people to rebel against Christianity, not because they believed it. Atheism is simply Hinduism in disquise. They believe creation created itself from absolutely nothing.

Proof that evolution is not scientific

In the beginning absolutely nothing created the heavens and the earth.
1st law of thermodynamics-energy(matter) cannot be created nor destroyed

All creation evolved from a non-living matter

2nd law of thermodynamics- things tend towards chaos and disorder, they don't get any better. Humans get older and slowly deteriorate, as well as physical structures.

The only scientific evidence of any form of evolution is mirco-evolution, which is small changes within the same specie. No other form of evolution is observed such as;
Cosmic Evolution- The evolution of time, space, and matter.
Chemical Evoltuion- The evolution of higher elements from hydrogen
Stellear and Planetary Evolution. Origin of stars and planets
Organic Evolution- Origin of Life
Macro Evolution- Changing from 1 kind to another

If evolution is wrong, creation is right, this logically makes sense.

panglosswa is wrong
her examples are not legitimate
she is right that if two objects share a common quality, that it does not mean they share another property, but what she fails to recognize is everything has to be created.

Answer 8

Nope.

They've been more or less refuted. Lemme find my sources...

And the simple fact is, the best you can get from them is a deist's god. So even if you accept their logic (which is flawed) you can not even make any assumptions as to the nature of the "first cause without a cause."

Answer 9

Nope.

God does not exist, therefore no argument can "prove" the existence of God.

Answer 10

No they just prove that belief in god can make otherwise intelligent people prone to the use of logical fallacies.

Answer 11

I have yet to see God, so I'm not understanding where the proof is.

At least 70% of the entire earth's population disagrees.

Because they have other ideas.