Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways

[Compassionist]

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/w ... alysis.htm
Is Aquinas right?

[animist]

yes of course! Seriously, have you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins (I suggested this to you a week or two ago)? He deals with these crap arguments on pages 100-103 of my Black Swan edition

[Compassionist]

yes of course! Seriously, have you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins (I suggested this to you a week or two ago)? He deals with these crap arguments on pages 100-103 of my Black Swan edition

Thank you animist. Yes, I read "The God Delusion". It was a great read. Thank you for your recommendation. I understand Dawkins's "Who designed the designer?" rebuttal. Theists respond by believing that their God or gods are ever existing and do not have a beginning or an end and do not require a designer. It is an argument from blind faith and cannot be proven or disproven.

[animist]

yes of course! Seriously, have you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins (I suggested this to you a week or two ago)? He deals with these crap arguments on pages 100-103 of my Black Swan edition

Thank you animist. Yes, I read "The God Delusion". It was a great read. Thank you for your recommendation. I understand Dawkins's "Who designed the designer?" rebuttal. Theists respond by believing that their God or gods are ever existing and do not have a beginning or an end and do not require a designer. It is an argument from blind faith and cannot be proven or disproven.

yes, the underlying problem about introducing God is that this explains nothing since it just pushes the mystery further back. William Lane Craig, in a video about Dawkins's book, takes issue with this, ie RD's argument that God himself needs to be explained. Craig replies that not all explanations require explanations of themselves, and uses the example of (I think) some bones discovered in a remote area; he says that attributing these bones to some aboriginal settlement at some point in time is a perfectly good explanation of how the bones came to be where they were. But if you think about, this explanation only works because we already know that there are many aboriginal societies which have died out before we knew of their existence; in other words, the explanation does require an explanation in terms of our pre-existing background knowledge. In the case of the God hypothesis, there is no such background knowledge, so Craig is as usual simply wrong

[Compassionist]

yes of course! Seriously, have you read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins (I suggested this to you a week or two ago)? He deals with these crap arguments on pages 100-103 of my Black Swan edition

Thank you animist. Yes, I read "The God Delusion". It was a great read. Thank you for your recommendation. I understand Dawkins's "Who designed the designer?" rebuttal. Theists respond by believing that their God or gods are ever existing and do not have a beginning or an end and do not require a designer. It is an argument from blind faith and cannot be proven or disproven.

yes, the underlying problem about introducing God is that this explains nothing since it just pushes the mystery further back. William Lane Craig, in a video about Dawkins's book, takes issue with this, ie RD's argument that God himself needs to be explained. Craig replies that not all explanations require explanations of themselves, and uses the example of (I think) some bones discovered in a remote area; he says that attributing these bones to some aboriginal settlement at some point in time is a perfectly good explanation of how the bones came to be where they were. But if you think about, this explanation only works because we already know that there are many aboriginal societies which have died out before we knew of their existence; in other words, the explanation does require an explanation in terms of our pre-existing background knowledge. In the case of the God hypothesis, there is no such background knowledge, so Craig is as usual simply wrong

I agree. Thank you for pointing it out.