Church attendance continues to plummet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

Aquinas was a smart guy, whose knowledge was limited because of the time in which he lived - the 1200's. That was 3 centuries before Copernicus and 8 centuries before space travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

the problem is any time people try to create a group or organization centered around god-belief, the group inevitably becomes like any other church with all the similar issues as before.

I'm the PP. I've been a member of a few churches in my lifetime, and almost every single one was created from a splinter group from another church due to disagreements of some sort. Churches are run by humans who are sinful, greedy, prideful, etc... so it's no wonder that churches have issues. In most of the churches I've attended, I was quite involved. It's true what they say... "20% of the people in the church do 80% of the work", and these are all volunteers.

I believe in God, but not necessarily the God that some man tells me is like. IMO, the Bible is not infallible. It was put together and translated by men, some who had their own bias and motives. I went to Sunday school and believed everything I was told about the Bible.. that the Bible is "God breathed", never changing, infallible. As I've gotten older and wiser, I see the holes in those beliefs.

What you refer to is "fellowship", which I think is important, but "fellowship" could just mean hanging out with friends or going to group outings. IMO, it doesn't have to be in a church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

the problem is any time people try to create a group or organization centered around god-belief, the group inevitably becomes like any other church with all the similar issues as before.

I'm the PP. I've been a member of a few churches in my lifetime, and almost every single one was created from a splinter group from another church due to disagreements of some sort. Churches are run by humans who are sinful, greedy, prideful, etc... so it's no wonder that churches have issues. In most of the churches I've attended, I was quite involved. It's true what they say... "20% of the people in the church do 80% of the work", and these are all volunteers.

I believe in God, but not necessarily the God that some man tells me is like. IMO, the Bible is not infallible. It was put together and translated by men, some who had their own bias and motives. I went to Sunday school and believed everything I was told about the Bible.. that the Bible is "God breathed", never changing, infallible. As I've gotten older and wiser, I see the holes in those beliefs.

What you refer to is "fellowship", which I think is important, but "fellowship" could just mean hanging out with friends or going to group outings. IMO, it doesn't have to be in a church.

Sounds like you'd be happier expressing your religious beliefs by yourself, or else lowering your expectations of a religious community. If you don't expect people to agree a lot or be equally involved in the community, then you won't be disappointed when they don't live up to expectations. They are human, after all. There wouldn't be so many religions if people all thought or believed the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

So Elvis is the only one, right? What about Aquinas? He died too. And why should we believe what he said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

the problem is any time people try to create a group or organization centered around god-belief, the group inevitably becomes like any other church with all the similar issues as before.

I'm the PP. I've been a member of a few churches in my lifetime, and almost every single one was created from a splinter group from another church due to disagreements of some sort. Churches are run by humans who are sinful, greedy, prideful, etc... so it's no wonder that churches have issues. In most of the churches I've attended, I was quite involved. It's true what they say... "20% of the people in the church do 80% of the work", and these are all volunteers.

I believe in God, but not necessarily the God that some man tells me is like. IMO, the Bible is not infallible. It was put together and translated by men, some who had their own bias and motives. I went to Sunday school and believed everything I was told about the Bible.. that the Bible is "God breathed", never changing, infallible. As I've gotten older and wiser, I see the holes in those beliefs.

What you refer to is "fellowship", which I think is important, but "fellowship" could just mean hanging out with friends or going to group outings. IMO, it doesn't have to be in a church.

Sounds like you'd be happier expressing your religious beliefs by yourself, or else lowering your expectations of a religious community. If you don't expect people to agree a lot or be equally involved in the community, then you won't be disappointed when they don't live up to expectations. They are human, after all. There wouldn't be so many religions if people all thought or believed the same way.

most of the time, the churches split due to ego, pride, and selfishness not because of ideology or doctrine.

I've seen it play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

the problem is any time people try to create a group or organization centered around god-belief, the group inevitably becomes like any other church with all the similar issues as before.

I'm the PP. I've been a member of a few churches in my lifetime, and almost every single one was created from a splinter group from another church due to disagreements of some sort. Churches are run by humans who are sinful, greedy, prideful, etc... so it's no wonder that churches have issues. In most of the churches I've attended, I was quite involved. It's true what they say... "20% of the people in the church do 80% of the work", and these are all volunteers.

I believe in God, but not necessarily the God that some man tells me is like. IMO, the Bible is not infallible. It was put together and translated by men, some who had their own bias and motives. I went to Sunday school and believed everything I was told about the Bible.. that the Bible is "God breathed", never changing, infallible. As I've gotten older and wiser, I see the holes in those beliefs.

What you refer to is "fellowship", which I think is important, but "fellowship" could just mean hanging out with friends or going to group outings. IMO, it doesn't have to be in a church.

Sounds like you'd be happier expressing your religious beliefs by yourself, or else lowering your expectations of a religious community. If you don't expect people to agree a lot or be equally involved in the community, then you won't be disappointed when they don't live up to expectations. They are human, after all. There wouldn't be so many religions if people all thought or believed the same way.

most of the time, the churches split due to ego, pride, and selfishness not because of ideology or doctrine.

I've seen it play out.

Right, that's what was meant by not being disappointed "when they don't live up to expectations."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

One wonders -- would pp express such concerns about anyone they were in conversation with about this issue, or just people who disagreed with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

One wonders -- would pp express such concerns about anyone they were in conversation with about this issue, or just people who disagreed with them?

One wonders, -- would you need to ask that question if you had substantive responses to the points about flaws in Aquinas' circular and presuppositional logic?

DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, there are a few reasons:

1. people are more educated and don't believe in some of the archaic teachings
2. people are turned off by the religiousity and/or politicizing of God's teachings
3. people may want to connect with a group but not with a group that they have not much in common with -- see #1 and #2
4. people have better things to do on Sundays

-long time church goer who stopped going due to all the above

Sounds like you don't believe in organized religion, but still believe in god. I wonder if there's a way to express god-belief with a like minded group, or if it's even needed.

It's called Deism, it has "existed since ancient times, but it did not develop as a religio-philosophical movement until after the Scientific Revolution"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

BTW there is no evidence for this unfalsifiable belief either.

There's no evidence for any of it. That's why it's called faith and why so many people experience feelings of losing their faith. Sometimes they regain it; sometimes they don't.

If I may beg to differ, at least some people of faith see the existence of God (higher power, divine intelligence, unifying force or what have you) all around them. “The Heavens proclaim the glory of God, and the earth proclaims his handiwork; day unto day sings out his presence and night unto night his praise.” The organized nature of what can be perceived in the universe is foundational to at least some of Aquinas’s proofs of God. Belief still requires faith but it can make use of reason to get there.

The universe is in fact a chaotic and disorganized place. If it is fine tuned for anything, as Stephen Hawking is supposed to have said, it is fine tuned for black holes.

All "reason" based cosmological arguments for god presuppose his existence, including Aquinas'.

So, you haven’t read him then.

Sigh. Must we do this?

1. The Argument from Motion: Our senses can perceive motion by seeing that things act on one another. Whatever moves is moved by something else. Consequently, there must be a First Mover that creates this chain reaction of motions. This is God. God sets all things in motion and gives them their potential.

2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: Because nothing can cause itself, everything must have a cause or something that creates an effect on another thing. Without a first cause, there would be no others. Therefore, the First Cause is God.

3. The Argument from Necessary Being: Because objects in the world come into existence and pass out of it, it is possible for those objects to exist or not exist at any particular time. However, nothing can come from nothing. This means something must exist at all times. This is God.

4. The Argument from Gradation: There are different degrees of goodness in different things. Following the “Great Chain of Being,” which states there is a gradual increase in complexity, created objects move from unformed inorganic matter to biologically complex organisms. Therefore, there must be a being of the highest form of good. This perfect being is God.

5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. Because the order of the universe cannot be the result of chance, design and purpose must be at work. This implies divine intelligence on the part of the designer. This is God.

Everything in bold is a presupposition. Not one thing proves god exists, or even attempts to.

Well! I am truly impressed! Great job.

Nonetheless, I must observe that you seem to misidentified what you label as “presuppositions;”

1. The “presupposition” here is that things don’t move by themselves but rather are set in motion by something else.

2. The “presupposition” is that things don’t happen by themselves.

3. The “presupposition” is that nothing can come from nothing.

4. The “presupposition” is that all things have an order/the universe cannot have occurred by chance.

“God” is a label Aquinas proposes for the “Prime Mover;” “First Cause;” Necessary Being;” Highest Form of Good;”and “Divine Intelligence” — the “something” that fills all these roles. I am sure you will disagree but I can’t say that I don’t find his “presuppositions” unpersuasive.

Thanks for your compliment.

But, no, since god is simply inserted into those premises as the conclusion, they presuppose the existence of god.

Here's proof: you could insert any noun, real or imaginary, in the place of god in those paragraphs and they would not be any more or less convincing as they wouldn't present any more or less evidence. Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything.

"But no" you will respond. "it can't be those things because it has to be god, because..."

...and there you have it.

I must disagree. What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.” Now that set of attributes existing as a unique entity could be given a different “name” but “Thor, a dinosaur, Elvis, mashed potatoes, farts from the multiverse slipping through a slit, anything” would not qualify because they would not possess that unique set of attributes. Elvis certainly didn’t. He died.

You say: "What Aquinas describes is a collection of attributes “we call God.”

Yes - that is the presupposition, exactly.

There are other flaws wrapped up in this circular logic also. Aquinas "claims that God must have always existed and will always exist. If God has always existed, where did he come from and how did he get there? Why is it necessary for the original creator to have always existed? Is it not possible that something could have existed, created something, and then stopped existing?"

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Do-Aquinass-Five-Proofs-for-the-Existence-of-God-Hold-Up

"Aquinas's five proofs don't hold up. There doesn't necessarily have to be an unchanging source of change, and unoriginated source of originated beings, a necessary source of unnecessary beings, an absolutely perfect source of all degrees of perfection, or an intelligent creator. The existence natural world does not require the existence of God, nor does it make the existence of God more probable. The universe and the natural world just are as they are, no outside help required."

You know, it sounds like you haven’t read the Angelic Doctor either in the original Latin or a good English translation, because in your haste to disprove Aquinas without addressing any of his philosophical underpinnings you seem to have everything backward. His analysis does not depend in any way on a Christian notion of God. To the contrary, his observations of nature combined with philosophical rigor leads to the conclusion that “something” must be there. He attributes the name “God” to it, but just as water would be what it is regardless what it is called, what “everyone calls God” exists independent of any label.

In any event, you’re free to believe or not; my point was that some people of faith find confirmation in nature. This is undeniable.

But you don’t rebut any of the points I made, or quoted, or from the link?

Correct. Because pp can't rebut your points, they instead express concern about your obvious failure to read the Angelic Doctor in Latin (or a good English translation).

Actually, I certainly could systematically rebut the anti-Aquinas poster’s derivative and ill-informed arguments taken from other people’s websites. Thomas in fact rebuts many/most of them in the relevant portion of the Summa. Unfortunately, the rebuttal would be very time consuming, require a ton of index finger typing, and very likely be over the head of anyone without at least an undergraduate degree (maybe a minor) in philosophy.

So I decided to stop playing. Non-believers are free to non-believe. I’m looking at the sun and the ocean right now. I don’t think they happened by accident.

[Anonymous]

Actually, I certainly could systematically rebut the anti-Aquinas poster’s derivative and ill-informed arguments taken from other people’s websites.

Then do it.

Unfortunately, the rebuttal would be very time consuming, require a ton of index finger typing, and very likely be over the head of anyone without at least an undergraduate degree (maybe a minor) in philosophy.

Ahh the old "I won't tell you because you won't understand" stance. Conveniently indistinguishable from the "I can't answer" and adds in a free insult!

So I decided to stop playing.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. Can't say I blame you.

I’m looking at the sun and the ocean right now. I don’t think they happened by accident.

And who says they did?