A mental exercise for believers in God.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A refutation of the Five Ways from a metaphysical realist's perspective, possibly.

Are you talking about St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways?
If so is
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm
a good summary? If not do you have more details.
I could easily refute list at the above site.

Originally posted by Penguin
Now that, I like. As KnightMeister pointed out, my example could be said to just stimulate the same areas as God does. It does not disprove him (he's not a disprovable concept) but just demonstrates that he is not the only explanation for the experiences.

However your version would imply that God can be 'turned off'. The God of the Bible cannot be turned orum? My guess is no but I'd be interested in hearing their justification.

--- Penguin.

How about you two engage with me instead of mutually massaging each other's skeptical position in some self congratulatory game? Your entire preconception of Christians is that we have no brains and are not questioning about our faith at all. Some are like that, some are not.

"However your version would imply that God can be 'turned off'. The God of the Bible cannot be turned off so either he does not exist or he would have to be complicit, choosing to play along with the experiment."PENGUIN

Of course God can be "turned off" as you put it. He will not force himself upon us. If someone chose to block off these experiences somehow then that's their choice. I don't see what it would prove other than the fact that men can block their sense of God out of their lives if they so wish. This has been known for centuries anyway.

In any case it wouldn't switch God "off" but only limit one's sense of him. God is involved in everyone's life whether they sense him or not , aware or unaware of him. The experiment would be a bit like saying "if I put a blindfold on a man I can 'turn off' the sun and prove it doesn't exist!"

Originally posted by Penguin
Now that, I like. As KnightMeister pointed out, my example could be said to just stimulate the same areas as God does. It does not disprove him (he's not a disprovable concept) but just demonstrates that he is not the only explanation for the experiences.

However your version would imply that God can be 'turned off'. The God of the Bible cannot be turned ...[text shortened]... orum? My guess is no but I'd be interested in hearing their justification.

--- Penguin.

Obviously it still does not disprove God. As has been said many times, including 3 paragraphs ago, any supernatural being is not disprovablePENGUIN

In reality this is not really so. God makes a whole host of promises to anyone who would try and seek him and ask him to show himself as real in their lives.
You ask whether Christians would put them forward for your experiment but would you put yourself forward for God's experiment (ie your life)?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you talking about St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways?
If so is
http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm
a good summary? If not do you have more details.
I could easily refute list at the above site.

It isn't a very good summary. For instance, with the First Way, your site interprets "motion" as its modern English form; Aquinas's motus is more like "change".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It isn't a very good summary. For instance, with the First Way, your site interprets "motion" as its modern English form; Aquinas's motus is more like "change".

Do you have a link to a good summary?

Does your original post stating that a refutation of the Five Ways might convince you that God does not exist, imply that you currently have no other good reason for believing in God except for the Five Ways or that you feel that if God does exist then the Five Ways would demonstrate it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have a link to a good summary?

Does your original post stating that a refutation of the Five Ways might convince you that God does not exist, imply that you currently have no other good reason for believing in God except for the Five Ways or that you feel that if God does exist then the Five Ways would demonstrate it?

I can't find a good summary online (I'll keep looking) but, in print, you can look at Peter Kreeft's A Summa of the Summa (Ignatius Press, 1990) or Brian Davies OP's The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (OUP, 1993).

My original post simply reflects my judgment that the Five Ways provide adequate evidence of God for a philosopher with realist metaphysics. This could be either in the strict deductive form that Aquinas used, or the inductive form that people like Swinburne have argued.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I can't find a good summary online (I'll keep looking) but, in print, you can look at Peter Kreeft's A Summa of the Summa (Ignatius Press, 1990) or Brian Davies OP's The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (OUP, 1993).

I am afraid I will not go out and buy a book without knowing more about its contents.
The summary that I referred to is easily refuted so I hope that his actual arguments have a bit more substance.

My original post simply reflects my judgment that the Five Ways provide adequate evidence of God for a philosopher with realist metaphysics. This could be either in the strict deductive form that Aquinas used, or the inductive form that people like Swinburne have argued.
But if it was shown to you in a convincing manner that they are not adequate evidence of God, would you then accept that God does not exist?
Or are you effectively saying "I know God exists and nothing will convince me otherwise."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am afraid I will not go out and buy a book without knowing more about its contents.
The summary that I referred to is easily refuted so I hope that his actual arguments have a bit more substance.

[b]My original post simply reflects my judgment that the Five Ways provide adequate evidence of God for a philosopher with realist metaphysics. This could ...[text shortened]... you effectively saying "I [b]know God exists and nothing will convince me otherwise."[/b][/b]

I am afraid I will not go out and buy a book without knowing more about its contents.

That's what libraries are for. 🙂

Then again, if you're interested in serious debate with theists, I would consider one or both to be a worthwhile investment.

But if it was shown to you in a convincing manner that they are [b]not adequate evidence of God, would you then accept that God does not exist?
Or are you effectively saying "I know God exists and nothing will convince me otherwise."[/b]

Not at all. Of course, my personal belief in God is based on much more than just the Five Ways, but a convincing refutation of these arguments would increase my assessment of the probability of God's non-existence.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Then again, if you're interested in serious debate with theists, I would consider one or both to be a worthwhile investment.

I will check my local bookshop and consider it.
However I doubt that the majority of Christians (the ones I've met anyway) would understand it anyway. Most of them certainly wouldn't have heard of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Not at all. Of course, my personal belief in God is based on much more than just the Five Ways, but a convincing refutation of these arguments would increase my assessment of the probability of God's non-existence.
I am convinced that they can be quite easily refuted. A basic understanding of physics might be necessary though. I had a problem with knightmeister claiming that a logical conclusion based on a flawed understanding of both physics and logic is somehow still valid as he believes himself to be on a higher plane philosophically.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am convinced that they can be quite easily refuted. A basic understanding of physics might be necessary though.

In many cases, I see that it is not so much physics as certain philosophical interpretations of physics (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation) that presuppose a "refutation".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In many cases, I see that it is not so much physics as certain philosophical interpretations of physics (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation) that presuppose a "refutation".

Since I don't know yet what the Five Ways actually are, I cannot say much about them. However the ones listed on the site I mentioned, presuppose certain philosophical interpretations of physics. So if that interpretation is wrong or based on a misunderstanding of physics then the conclusions are wrong.
For example knightmeister claimed that the time dimension is necessarily infinite and then tried to make claims based on that. But he could not back up his initial claim.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In many cases, I see that it is not so much physics as certain philosophical interpretations of physics (e.g. the Copenhagen interpretation) that presuppose a "refutation".

All of the 5 ways are laughably easy to refute.

The first 3 are basically arguments from the first cause. i.e. what caused the first thing to come into existence? Nothing can cause itself, so how do we explain it? Oooooh, I know - let's invent something called God which CAN cause itself to come into existence.
Totally question begging. Pathetic.

the last 2 ways are basically the teleological argument. (intelligent design theory). This has been refuted ad nauseum. For the most modern refutation, see "The God delusion" (which shows that some 'designs' were clearly inadequate and resulted in the extinction of the species).

It really is sad that in this day and age, you have to use a 13th century monk to justify your ridiculous belief system, LH.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I will check my local bookshop and consider it.
However I doubt that the majority of Christians (the ones I've met anyway) would understand it anyway. Most of them certainly wouldn't have heard of St. Thomas Aquinas.

[b]Not at all. Of course, my personal belief in God is based on much more than just the Five Ways, but a convincing refutation of these ...[text shortened]... logic is somehow still valid as he believes himself to be on a higher plane philosophically.

I had a problem with knightmeister claiming that a logical conclusion based on a flawed understanding of both physics and logic is somehow still valid as he believes himself to be on a higher plane philosophicallyWHITEY

I note you have abandoned the circle of time debate ?....

Originally posted by howardgee
All of the 5 ways are laughably easy to refute.

The first 3 are basically arguments from the first cause. i.e. what caused the first thing to come into existence? Nothing can cause itself, so how do we explain it? Oooooh, I know - let's invent something called God which CAN cause itself to come into existence.
Totally question begging. Pathetic.
...[text shortened]... and age, you have to use a 13th century monk to justify your ridiculous belief system, LH.

All of the 5 ways are laughably easy to refute.

You've only done the laughing bit so far. That's easy.

what caused the first thing to come into existence? Nothing can cause itself, so how do we explain it? Oooooh, I know - let's invent something called God which CAN cause itself to come into existence.
Totally question begging.

Just because you've read the term "begging the question" somewhere does not mean you understand it. Can you actually demonstrate the circularity in the argument?

Btw, God is not self-caused in Aquinas's arguments. That's a strawman.

the last 2 ways are basically the teleological argument.

No, they aren't. Only the fifth Way is - and even there it bears only a superficial resemblance to modern ID theories.

This has been refuted ad nauseum. For the most modern refutation, see "The God delusion" (which shows that some 'designs' were clearly inadequate and resulted in the extinction of the species).

For one thing, you're chasing a strawman. The fifth Way is not an argument from biological design.

For another, you're presuming that the purpose of a design is to maximise the survival function of the object being designed. That assumption is flawed -- there are plenty of counter-examples even from human designs.

It really is sad that in this day and age, you have to use a 13th century monk to justify your ridiculous belief system, LH.

What is really sad is that people like you, who claim to be flag-bearers of reason, are, in fact, the most unreasonable. Even your sentence above illustrates my point.

Originally posted by knightmeister
How about you two engage with me instead of mutually massaging each other's skeptical position in some self congratulatory game? Your entire preconception of Christians is that we have no brains and are not questioning about our faith at all. Some are like that, some are not.

"However your version would imply that God can be 'turned off'. The God ...[text shortened]... ut a blindfold on a man I can 'turn off' the sun and prove it doesn't exist!"

Sorry about that, no offence intended.

[b/Of course God can be "turned off" as you put it. He will not force himself upon us. If someone chose to block off these experiences somehow then that's their choice. I don't see what it would prove other than the fact that men can block their sense of God out of their lives if they so wish. This has been known for centuries anyway.[/b]

Indeed, it could easily be said that rather than God being 'turned off', the subject had turned away from God by agreeing to the experiment. So the experiment would have to be performed on an unwilling subject, or indeed by using a control group and possibly even double-blind methods. Hense with a large number of subjects, some would be rigged to the real apparatus and others would be rigged to fake apparatus with neither the subjects nor the experimenters being aware of who had what until the end of the experiment. If it then turned out that those rigged with the real apparatus had no religeous experiences during 'on' periods but had them at other times and the control group had consistant rates of experience throughout (or at least with no correlation to 'on' periods), might that be fairly convincing? They have all subjected themselves to the experiment but only those unknowingly attached to the real equipment had altered rates of communication with God. It's now no longer the subject's choice to block themselves off from God, and neither is it the scientists choice.

In any case it wouldn't switch God "off" but only limit one's sense of him. God is involved in everyone's life whether they sense him or not , aware or unaware of him. The experiment would be a bit like saying "if I put a blindfold on a man I can 'turn off' the sun and prove it doesn't exist!"

That argument may still be just as valid even in the above scenario but note that it implies that our sense of God can be turned off with a purely natural procedure affecting the mechanics of the brain. Surely receptiveness to God is a spiritual thing, dependant on the soul.

--- Penguin