St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be prove[b][/b]d in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2016 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion
***
Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
***
Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
***
Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
***
Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
***
Therefore nothing can move itself.
***
Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
***
The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
***
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: Argument from Efficient Causes

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
***
Nothing exists prior to itself.
***
Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
***
If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
***
Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
***
If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
***
That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
***
Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
***
Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
***
Assume that every being is a contingent being.
***
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
***
Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
***
Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
***
Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
***
Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
***
We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
***
Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
***
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
***
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
***
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
***
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: Argument from Design

We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
***
Most natural things lack knowledge.
***
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
***
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
***

Belief in God is not irrational or held by idiots as many an atheist would posit.
The best minds that the world had ever seen believed in the existence of a higher supreme uncaused causer, uncreated creator!
From Newton, Einstein, Pascal to the
the Arab scholars that gave us the blessings of mathematics, astronomy, geometry and architecture among several others...

The Pascalian Wager is a perfectly logical strategy in decision theory.

I hope we can discuss these issues with resorting to disrespect and insults

red eyes at night, stoners delight.
red eyes in morning, stoners take warning.

Lemme park here.

I've seen this article before, or am I dreaming?

passey:

The First Way: Argument from Motion
***
Therefore nothing can move itself.
***

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes
***
Nothing exists prior to itself.
***


The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)
***
For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
***
***
Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being
***
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: Argument from Design
***
Most natural things lack knowledge.
***
But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
***
Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
***

You have massively contradicted yourself.



1. You said nothing can move itself so how did God move itself?

2. If nothing existed prior to itself, how did God come to existence?

3. This is similar to No. 2. It means there must be a time God did not exist.
You go further by applying a "special" attribute to God as being "a necessary catalyst for the existence of other beings". This contradicts your first & second arguments because to be a causative factor for other beings, God must first move itself & then exist.

4. This is wrong. God is not the threshold nor the maximum measure of perfection. If you say God at its maximum degree represents say, a PhD holder with a clean record & a good heart, it must also mean that God represents a mass murderer & rapist at its lower degree.

The yardstick for perfection is not God rather it is law & order which happens to be man made. For example, if the laws of a certain land legalize & glorify the killing of albinos then to be perfect in that environment, one has to become an albino killer.

5. Wrong again.

Most natural things HAVE KNOWLEDGE & God does not direct the intelligence of beings rather intelligence is derived / learnt & continuously nurtured.

Another point of note is that the words "intelligence" & "God" do not go together in the same sentence.

Thank you.




*spits

Lucifersticlala:


You have massively contradicted yourself.

I am waiting for proof and am open to learning

TVSA:
I've seen this article before, or am I dreaming?

I've seen it as well

Lucifersticlala:


You have massively contradicted yourself.



1. You said nothing can move itself so how did God move itself?

2. If nothing existed prior to itself, how did God come to existence?

3. This is similar to No. 2. It means there must be a time God did not exist.
You go further by applying a "special" attribute to God as being "a necessary catalyst for the existence of other beings". This contradicts your first & second arguments because to be a causative factor for other beings, God must first move itself & then exist.

4. This is wrong. God is not the threshold nor the maximum measure of perfection. If you say God at its maximum degree represents say, a PhD holder with a clean record & a good heart, it must also mean that God represents a mass murderer & rapist at its lower degree.

The yardstick for perfection is not God rather it is law & order which happens to be man made. For example, if the laws of a certain land legalize & glorify the killing of albinos then to be perfect in that environment, one has to become an albino killer.

5. Wrong again.

Most natural things HAVE KNOWLEDGE & God does not direct the intelligence of beings rather intelligence is derived / learnt & continuously nurtured.

Another point of note is that the words "intelligence" & "God" do not go together in the same sentence.

Thank you.




*spits

..
Why always spit??

Lucifersticlala:


You have massively contradicted yourself.



1. You said nothing can move itself so how did God move itself?

2. If nothing existed prior to itself, how did God come to existence?

3. This is similar to No. 2. It means there must be a time God did not exist.
You go further by applying a "special" attribute to God as being "a necessary catalyst for the existence of other beings". This contradicts your first & second arguments because to be a causative factor for other beings, God must first move itself & then exist.

4. This is wrong. God is not the threshold nor the maximum measure of perfection. If you say God at its maximum degree represents say, a PhD holder with a clean record & a good heart, it must also mean that God represents a mass murderer & rapist at its lower degree.

The yardstick for perfection is not God rather it is law & order which happens to be man made. For example, if the laws of a certain land legalize & glorify the killing of albinos then to be perfect in that environment, one has to become an albino killer.

5. Wrong again.

Most natural things HAVE KNOWLEDGE & God does not direct the intelligence of beings rather intelligence is derived / learnt & continuously nurtured.

Another point of note is that the words "intelligence" & "God" do not go together in the same sentence.

Thank you.




*spits

I think you just decided to argue at the most shallow level of Contemplation.
By definition, God is the uncreated creator, perfect in power and wisdom; possessing attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence having eternal existence.
As a human mortal, I don't arrogate to myself the knowledge to know and understand all things including God Himself. So for the theist, our knowledge of God is based on what is revealed in nature and in the holy inspired verifiable scriptural records.
So looking at the definition and explanations of the nature of God across many belief systems, I wonder where you find your contradiction because my definition and subsequent proofs of the existence of God are certainly consistent.
You cannot find a logical contradiction in my position apart from the hasty conclusion of error that you reached without proof and may be without truly considering the substance of my argument.
To your points:
1. You did not provide a proof of error in my understanding of nature of God against the proofs provided. By my understanding, God is the unmovable mover and that holds true because there must be a first cause to start any process- I believe we can agree on this simple logical assertion. For that first cause to truly be the first cause, it must be outside of the system it initiates otherwise then it is simply part of the system and not the first cause. To expatiate, if we take the so called Big Bang, whatever may have caused it must have been outside it. If for the sake of argument we say it's some firm of implosion, one can then ask, what imploded? and what is the origin of that which imploded? The logical answer of these questions must point to something outside of the big bang process. I claim it is a higher intelligence to cause the bang process itself. I claim it is a God.
Therefore the creator of the universe must then have been outside the universe before creating it. So I am saying that God is not part of the universe He created and so He can be the first cause in the context in the context of our debate.

2. If you are implying that things have existed eternally, then you are implicitly burdened with the task to provide the beginning of eternity because eternity is just a measure to describe time. My first points about the omniscience of
God is instructive because as far as infinite knowledge is concerned, I am humble enough to attribute it only to the divine nature of God. I believe that the human mortal does not yet understand half of the nature around us and I am content to believe that God will reveal more about Himself in an eternity, which is outside of measurable time as we know it. I know you should by now know that I am not intellectually lazy.

3. Again, unless you are able to rationally dispute the logical assertion of things not being able to move themselves by themselves without an external force, then all I see you doing is disagreeing with me not disputing my logic. I am arguing that for things to move there must be an external source of energy for the movement, I am making a claim that it is a supreme being that understand to be God.
I don't see you disputing my claim with any examples but just claiming that God as I define Him cannot be. So what is the unmovable force in your own view? And what scientific, logical or philosophical logic can you use to prove the existence of such a higher power? Because I have successful put forward a logical scientific argument about the existence of a first cause.

4. I don't shy away from the fact that evil exists but the explanation of the existence of evil is in the religious philosophy of the fallen nature of man enabled yet again by the philosophy of free will and ultimate accountability/ judgement.
As far as I know about morality of good and evil, there cannot be a logical basis to say there is such a thing as moral evil unless there is such a thing as moral good. There cannot be a moral good unless there is a moral law to determine what is good and there cannot be a moral law unless there is a giver of such a law who in the least must be moral. Such a moral being must also be able to allow the possibility of choice or freewill if he is to be a moral umpire. Otherwise he will end up being an immoral dictator. Now God is the perfection of all things good and it is consistent with moral goodness to allow dissent on the basis of choice and freewill. So the fact that evil exists in a universe governed by a perfect moral God does not negate His perfection and supreme goodness instead it emphasizes His morality hence Hence perfect goodness. For example,
A moral leader may not condone crime but to be moral he must allow his subjects the rights to make choices while specifying the consequences of their choices. Here you will also agree that the existence of crime does not in any way take away from the moral goodness of such a leader that allows people to make a freewilled choice to do good or evil.

5. Many natural things like rocks, sun, moon, rain, trees etc do not posses natural intelligence as we know it but the do conform to a an intelligent pattern that if distorted could lead to the destruction of humanity as we know it. My point here is that for unintelligent entities to exhibit intelligent behavior there must be an external intelligence exerting some control on them. For example, your car system exhibits coordinated intelligent behavior between the parts but you know that if itself, it is incapable of such intelligent interaction without the superior intelligence of its maker. Further more, if you are walking in an inhabited desert and you find a working clock, because you know the intricate processes that enable a clock to tell time accurately, you cannot logically think that the clock made itself or had no maker or a designer that is not the clock itself. The processes that govern the operations of the universe are as far as we can tell the most complex and all of human history has been about trying to understand it and the laws that govern its operations. Could you objectively, say that such a perfectly coordinated system does not have atleast, a superior intelligence to design it or operate it.
Of course some intelligence is derived but there must at least be a basis, a foundation, or a source from which such intelligence is derived. My claim is that God is the source of such intelligence, what is your own source? NOTHING?
God is the perfect intelligence, so it is a mute point to begin arguing His intelligence but we can argue mine.
My claim is that such a super intelligence is a God who is superior and definitely powerful enough to conceive, design and operate the universe without being part of it and who is not subject to the laws of its operations because He actually caused it to be. As for His origin and source, I am willing to admit that I don't know for now and I trust His revelation to clarify it in the hereafter.
Unless you are able to furnish me with a logically consistent answer to the same questions you ask, then I am willing to continue the search and understanding of the nature of God on the basis of the logically coherent information available in scientific thought and theological revelation.

*** spits?? I don't debate you out of disdain for your view point or belief so I don't find your argument irritating, it's just different from mine.if you can logical discuss your points without hasty assumption of error then we could even find a point of convergence.
Notice that I never say you are wrong because that is a conclusion to be reached at the end not at the beginning.
By the way you provide a useful opportunity to interact at a deep intellectual level.

I am waiting for your response

TVSA:
I've seen this article before, or am I dreaming?

You are right, I have posted the article before now but it is also common knowledge. It's called the Five ways of Aquinas.... Logical arguments put forward by Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence existence of God . It is a good basis to start debate on the existence of God and a good point to raise with people that think the belief in religion and existence of God is illogical.

Uyi168:
..
Why always spit??

It is hatred and disdain for anything God