[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
There "proofs" are terrible, and if you can't dissprove every single one of these, I feel sorry for you and your logic of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Starting out an argument by insulting your opponent is the sign of a weak intellectual mind, Zee. Nevertheless, should I feel sorry for your "logic of logic," because you havent done anything but talk in circles and have done nothing to disprove it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is certain and in fact evident to our senses that some things in the world are moved. Everything that is moved, however, is moved by something else, for a thing cannot be moved unless that movement is potentially within it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suck at physics, but there are constant forces. One is gravity, which is already enough to dissprove his first contention. I'm under the impression that recently the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force have all recently been combined into one force, but either way, they are a damn good explanation for movevement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well that makes two of us that suck at physics, but I was under the assumption that gravity is only a constant force insomuch as there is matter to cause it. So it is fair to say gravity was "created" when the matter was created. In any rate, gravity is "caused" by the density of matter, it is not a force in of itself.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, a stick moves only because it is moved by the hand. Thus it is necessary to proceed back to some prime mover which is moved by nothing else, and this is what everyone means by "God."


[/ QUOTE ]

If he defines the thing that moves other stuff as God, he is simply defining God as the forces of the universe that science can already explain.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf? please do more than skim the post before you respond. He is not saying, for instance, God directly caused bodies to fall towards an object of denser matter. That is caused by gravity, quite obviously (although he may not have understood gravity, in that he wrote before Newton, he most definately understood scientific laws). The point is something causes gravity, and that thing is caused by something, and so on, and so on, and so on. It does not take very many "and so ons" at all before we are quite beyond what science can explain. Do you know what "causes" gravity? Although science may have an explanation for it, I am quite sure they cannot explain the cause of the cause. Regardless, that is beside the point - it is impossible for their regress ad infinitum explaining each cause (it violates logic) - at some point there must have been a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We see in the world around us that there is an order of efficient causes. Nor is it ever found (in fact it is impossible) that something is its own efficient cause... Thus it is necessary to posit some first efficient cause, which everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

This A) assumes there is a beginning of time that we can pinpoint the first existence of matter, and we can't really assume there was a beginning.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you mean we cant pinpoint the first existence of matter, well of course this is true, and I doubt we ever will. But there have been a beginning. Even big bang theorists and similar theories posit a beginning of matter, and the idea that matter always existed is quite absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is a common flaw among "believers" to assume that atheists can't account for the beginning of the universe, but believers can. "God has always existed and God created everything else". If you can just assume God has always existed, I can just assume that the matter in the universe has always existed. It's that simply. "Believers" are just as clueless about the origin of the universe as atheists are, and saying that God always existed, but the rest of the universe hasn't is such a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, this comment seems to me quit beyond the scope of this discussion and just an exscuse for you to "dig" at Christians. No where did I attempt to prove the biblical explanation for the creation of the universe or defend commonly held beliefs by believers. Or does Aquinas discuss "how" God created the universe - I am quite willing to concede believers do not know how that happenned. As for matter, the notion that is has always existed is absurd. Over eons of time mountains crumble, oceans dry up, stars implode and planets are destroyed. I realize in the short term of millions of millenia this is just matter changing shape - nonetheless each change has a cause, which has a cause, which has a cause, etc. - and a basic understanding of logic will bring the conclusion that there must have been a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We find that some things can either exist or not exist, for we find them springing up and then disappearing, thus sometimes existing and sometimes not. It is impossible, however, that everything should be such, for what can possibly not exist does not do so at some time... Thus we must to posit the existence of something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself. That is what everyone calls "God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, he is finding a hole in scientific understanding, and saying that he himself doesn't know the answer, but he is at the same defining the answer as God.

Let me make an analogy for you. "I lost my wallet this morning, but I haven't touched it since I sat it on my desk last night. Something must have moved my wallet, and that something is God."

[/ QUOTE ]

Your analogy is horrible, and shows your complete misunderstanding of the text (or perhaps your indifference to attempt to understand it). A more correct understanding would be: your wallet is missing because you got drunk last night and moved it, but forgot when you sobered up. You got drunk because you are an alcoholic. You are an alcoholic because you were beat by an alcoholic father. Your father was an acholic because x, x because y, y because... on and on and on. But eventually there has to be a first cause.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, he is making the same cop out as in his 2nd point saying that God has always existed. What the [censored] gives God the ability to always exist without explanation, when everything else requires explanation?

[/ QUOTE ]
I cant tell here if you just dont understand the text or are intentionally distorting it. Regardless, there must be a first cause. Since this first cause could not have been caused (it is the first cause after all) it must have always existed. That is logic. I am not going to explain it further other than if you dont understand it an elementary logic course at a local community college wouldnt hurt. This doesnt mean the first cause necessarily has all the characteristics Christians and Jews and Muslims associate with God. But since the characteristics he has proven match some of those we believe about God, he calls it "God." "God" is just a name however, call is the "prime mover" if you wish - that is what Aristotle called it.

[ QUOTE ]

This last point might have some flaws in it, but I'm going to make it anway for the sake of discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
If it is possible for every particular thing not to exist, there must have been a time when nothing at all existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumption is false. It is NOT possible for ANY particular thing to have ever not existed. According to physics, mass can neither be created nor destroyed. If it cannot be created, we must assume that it has always existed. If matter has always existed, his entire 3rd point is completely disproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, perhaps you should alert the scientific community that there efforts to explain the creation of the universe over the past few decades (big bang, etc.) is a waste of time - ZeeJustin says that matter always existed!