How do atheist\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Logic and Morality do exist in our world. Explain me how you would read Theory of Poker if Logic did not exist? Explain me why I would not kill my wife's rapist if morality did not exist?


[/ QUOTE ]

If the universe is irrational the probabilities that Poker is based on are an illusion. The top card could be the ace of spades or a pink elephant.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are not making sense. Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.

You seem to be equating "certain events are indeterministic" with "everything is goofy and we can't know anything and it's all an illusion." But that's not, in fact, what the first phrase means. It certainly doesn't imply anything about mixing up the ace of spades with a pink elephant.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to assume order in the universe to believe there is order in the deck of cards. If the universe is irrational literally anything can happen. That which is irrational is unable to be determined. That is goofy.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if certain events are indeterministic, that's still the ace of spades on the top of the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have to assume order in the universe to believe there is order in the deck of cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean exactly, but if you mean that you have to assume that no events are random, then you're wrong. It is perfectly possible for certain events (such as which atom in some group will decay first) to be random, while we know that it's the ace of spades on the top of the deck and not a pink elephant.

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe is irrational literally anything can happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the universe isn't "irrational" according to that irrelevant definition. But that sure doesn't imply that no events are random.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It is perfectly possible for certain events (such as which atom in some group will decay first) to be random, while we know that it's the ace of spades on the top of the deck and not a pink elephant.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may know it now but you can't know it will remain the ace of spades if you believe in the ultimate irrationality of the universe.

[ QUOTE ]

Then the universe isn't "irrational" according to that irrelevant definition


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the definition of irrational.

American Heritage
1a. Not endowed with reason.

If the universe is not based on reason, literally anything is possible.

[m1illion]

"Therefore it is impossible that a thing could move itself, for that would involve simultaneously moving and being moved in the same respect. Thus whatever is moved must be moved by something, else, etc. This cannot go on to infinity, however, for if it did there would be no first mover and consequently no other movers, because these other movers are such only insofar as they are moved by a first mover."

1."it is IMPOSSIBLE that a thing could move itself"

Therefore a first mover is impossible.

2. "This cannot go on to infinity" why? "for if it did there would be no first mover"

see point 1

A long thread for something so self contradictory.

[The once and future king]

The fact that the universe exists is irrational. It exists purely due to a random sequence of events.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
If the universe is not based on reason, literally anything is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then, as I said before, the universe isn't not based on reason under that irrelevant definition.

The subject of this tangent in this thread is whether certain events are random rather than deterministic.

You want to turn that into "then literally anything can happen," but the leap isn't warranted.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) There is an order of efficient causes which cannot progress back infinitely;

2) You can regress any cause back through predecessor causes;

3) Therefore, since an order of causes cannot progress back infinitely, you eventually reach a first cause, which is called God.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes. There could be more than one first cause. (WHICH IS BASICALLY LIKE SAYING, A BUNCH OF STUFF WAS JUST THERE, NO GOD NECESSARY) There is still a logical gap.

[ QUOTE ]
Now since in your first post you quoted David's belief that most physicists believe that not every effect has a cause, an assertion which if true would invalidate the major premise, I challege you to prove that assertion from a physics standpoint. Be sure to include a discussion of Newton's 3rd law of motion in it. And note that the assertion in question is not whether some such physicists believe that to be true, but the belief itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The effect without a cause stuff stems from stuff we don't understand yet. Quantum foam type stuff. Classical mechanics fall apart at that level, so Newton is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem you are having is that you are being argumentative rather than debating. Item #3 is really stating that there is some "thing" which must violate rule #1, thus being "supernatural", because all natural things require a cause. This "supernatural thing" is being called "God".

The follow up question is..

If there can be at least one thing that exists without cause, in what way is it proven that the set of things that exist without cause is limited to one? Or more simply "Why can't there be 32,321 "supernatural things"?

[PokerAmateur4]

Hello to this part of the forum, I'm new to S, M, P. Hopefully religious discussion won't dissuade anyone whose opinion differs from giving me poker advice.

[ QUOTE ]
"If you assume that every effect has a cause (which everyone who is not David Hume does),"

Unless my limited knowledge of quantum physics is flawed, almost all physicists believe that not every effect has a cause.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a more enveloping sense, wouldn't those physicist concede that even the decaying particle has a cause which created it? I.e. the big bang etc.?

Therefore I don't think that that alone disproves his proof.

Nevertheless his proof is not near convincing for me because of the above reasons against it and others.

[Peter666]

A first mover does not move itself, it is MOVEMENT itself.