Don, I think it is becoming apparent to everyone that you are not dealing with Aquinas' arguments at all. If we look at Aquinas' secound way
, we see your "cause, efficient cause, first cause, Kalam Cosmological argument, etc.
" really doesn't apply at all, nor your following responses which are then applied to a caricature. I see only one of those terms you mentioned ("efficient cause"), and based upon your words I question whether you understand what he means by it.
I say this partly for your sake, as more people will realise and pay your words zero respect (as has been happening here already with some and in your other threads). Now, it could be you've just come across stupid unintelligent Christians who just need "enlightening", or perhaps, just perhaps there is something you are doing which needs self-examining. Perhaps adapting your approach to be more conversational and understanding might be helpful. OR, you can continue lecturing us all at every turn, but I ask how has that been working for you here?
We can all use a little self-examination at the best of times. This I do agree. I feel like the little boy who sees that the Emperor/King is not wearing any clothes. He ask his mother why the king is not wearing any clothes. She tells him that everyone can see that he is wearing clothes. Everyone knows that he is wearing clothes. There is no doubt that he is wearing clothes, and I'm going to go out and buy the very same clothes. She tells him that he I must be ignorant, blind, willfully disrespectful, different, or have some other hidden agenda blinding him to the truth. The little boy tells his mother, "No mom, it's just that I can see his skin, hair, rear end, and other normally hidden human features". His mother tells him, "They are just straw men, use your metaphysical
eye this time. She agains tells him that the king IS TRULY
wearing clothes". The little boy then says, "What's a straw man?". The mother says, "It's when you see something that isn't really there, and talk about it as though it was". People grew more suspicious of the little boy, and began to ostracize and ignore him. One day a little girl, also stated that the King was not wearing any clothes. Soon more people began to see that the King was not wearing any clothes, until someone finally told the king. The king finally started wearing clothes. He thought that he WAS
wearing clothes, because the people said he was. What do you think the moral of this story is? Change only needs a beginning, and the truth will always rise above Belief. Or something like that.
I have lectured for many, many years, but I am not above learning new things. I have asked many times to point out the flaws in my comments. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. The state of my ego, is not attached to being right or wrong. But so far it's only Ad Hominem attacks, condescending remarks, resentment, Straw man accusations, or just questioning my comprehension abilities. Since it may be cognitive dissonance or close mindedness, that prevents you from seeing the obvious, let me simplify this.
1. Does any of Aquinas's Arguments prove/suggest that that the uncaused cause/prime mover, etc., is a God
? Does it prove/suggest any features of a God, or that a God in fact DOES
exist(not MUST exist). If so HOW? Does any of his argument prove/suggest any kind of Theism? Does he propose anything that even resembles the scientific method of inquiry? If so How?
2. Do you believe that the BB was the beginning of the Universe of everything(multidimensions, multiverse, Strings, etc.)? Or, do you believe the BB was the beginning of the Universe that we can see today(matter, space, energy, and time)? If you believe in the first universe, then there IS no
beginning, since there IS NO
conception or understanding of time
before the BB or the infinite. If you believe in the second universe, then all you can say is that evidence supports a beginning. But this does not support any Being, or that the BB was in fact a FIRST CAUSE
. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. How do you overcome(other than to simply dismiss or ignore) the physical properties inherent in all objects in our 4 dimensional Universe? How can you simply ignore the first law of motion(inertia), the zeroth law of thermodynamics(absolute zero), the entropy principle(zerochaos), and all the argument's obvious contradictions and fallacies? How could anything with
these properties be the start of the Universe, let alone have created it? This would mean that the Universe was created from absolute NOTHINGNESS. If I'm I wrong here? Why?
If I need to change reality to fit my beliefs, then one or the other is not real. Let's talk metaphysical. There are only three kinds of realities. There is math
that exist, whether reality exists or not(transcendent). There is consciousness
, which exists outside
of the physical reality, and has no measurable dimensions. And, there is the material world
, which exists outside
of consciousness, and does have measurable dimensions. So tell me, how can physical atoms and molecules create something that exists in a separate domain that has no physical existence, like consciousness? How do our non-physical thoughts somehow mysteriously guide the actions of our physical bodies? Finally, how do non-physical mathematical constructs determine the workings of a separate material world?
I'm not here to change anyones position. I'm here to encourage "self-examination" through discussion. I can't help or change the true nature of my, "soul". It represents the essence of my human condition, and the essence of who I am. As my father once told me, "you will never be able to please everyone, but it is not everyone
you need to please". Anyway, I'm still waiting on the specifics, and not just the cryptic. It is what I say
, not how I say it that should be important. If you can't justify your comments and accusations, then you really shouldn't make them. Don