How do atheist\scientists account for Thomas Aquinas?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot make that that distinction in the first premise. So basically not all things need causes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can make any distinction I want in a premise. If it isn't valid then prove it.

[ 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 ]

It sure is fun to use a lot of scientific jargon in a phrase that doesn't logically make sense isn't it? If there is "stuff" that we don't "understand yet", then you can't assert a non-understanding to make the conclusions your gave regarding quantum mechanics. This is a nice example of the logical fallacy of affirming a conclusion from a negative premise.

[David Sklansky]

If it is true that physicists think that not everything has a cause, then that particular Aquinas argument goes out the window. Not because it is logically unrigorous. But because he assumed his first premise was SELF EVIDENT. It doesn't matter that physicists have yet to totally disprove it. It only matters that they have big doubts about it. If it isn't self evident to them, then non physicists, who haven't studied the refuting evidence, should show them enough respect to believe that it is truly not self evident. Even if they don't have the expertise to realize why.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. What an atheist can't do is justify meaning, logic, purpose, morality or hope. There's no logical basis for logic. The primary reason for the difficulty is trying to derive personality from the impersonal by chance.

[12AX7]

Oh I dunno. I didn't see an "proof" of God in Thomas' writing. Just that the "first of everything"... "everyone calls God". (Just skimmed through though.)

That strikes me as a logical leap of faith. Now I'm no philosopher in the sense of those sort of arguments. So no flames please.

But Thomas' arguments are just not the same as say meeting this "God" or "the Burning Bush" or whatever you believe in and bringing back a lock of his hair, so to speak.

So I see nothing concrete in Thomas' statements. They all seem like... "Well everything had to start somewhere... that's God".

And even that begets the question... who or what created "God". LOL! Who is "God's God"? And so on.

To be honest, I discount, though don't fully reject the idea of any all good, or all loving, knowing God. To much awfulness in this world.

If there is a God. Seems he's abandoned this place at times.

I mean, if *you* had a clean sheet of paper to design on... why even design in "evil". Why does everything have to eat something else that was alive. Why are childern molested by the clergy... why don't we all just absorb sunlight for energy and so on.

So for me this God must have some very interesting explanations for things. And if they are in the area of "well because that's a physical law"... well then God isn't so boundless after all, huh?

And I won't pick on any particular religion here but most clergy sound like salesman to me, complete with canned phrases to overcome "objections" to thier particular sect. Hmm... almost like psychiatrists that peddle Prozac too! Full of good sounding explanations that on close examination are somewhat not proven.

Salesmen, shrinks, clergy... all the same thing... They mess with your head to take your money.... Ooops guess that's poker folks too. LOL!

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"This is true. What an atheist can't do is justify meaning, logic, purpose, morality or hope. There's no logical basis for logic."

Like I said before I won't disagree. Except for the logic part. Unless you don't mean formal logic. Are you saying that we need God for the rules of syllogisms to be correct? If you do, you are contradicting yourself from back when you admitted that even God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that we need God for the rules of syllogisms to be correct? If you do, you are contradicting yourself from back when you admitted that even God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one.


[/ QUOTE ]

We need God for the rules of syllogisms to exist. There's no contradiction because the reason God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one (I'm taking your word for it, how about using 1+1 != 3?) is because He can't deny Himself. Logic is not above God but is an expression of His nature. Logic did not exist independently of God, God doesn't look up the laws of logic in some Divine Textbook written by impersonal chance. If logic is above God, He isn't God.

[David Sklansky]

"We need God for the rules of syllogisms to exist. There's no contradiction because the reason God can't make two cubic integers add up to a third one (I'm taking your word for it, how about using 1+1 != 3?) is because He can't deny Himself."

OK. Thank You.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone who has been watching it for many years previously has no advantage over you, the bookmaker who just walked into the room. This basically implies that nothing caused its decay.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Suppose I choose a random number X between 0 and 1. I then compute Y=-ln(X) ("ln" is the natural logarithm). I then set a timer for Y years. I tell everyone what I have done, but no one knows the value of X. If you want to place bets on when the timer will go off, then the same principle applies. If you walk into the room, you gain no advantage from knowing when I set the timer. The odds the timer will go off in the next Z hours is the same, no matter how long the timer has been going. And obviously, something caused the timer to go off. I did.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I choose a random number X between 0 and 1

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this?

[jason1990]

X is a random variable with the uniform distribution on the interval [0,1].