HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Why is Dr. Dawkins and so... » Reply #12

Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:31 PM

12. That is the conclusion of the argument.

Aquinas' argument is (in part):

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another
...
If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.
...
But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover
...
Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other


As to your question:

Are you saying its a warranted conclusion, and if so, where is your evidence?


Read my post #10:

... The whole argument leads to the conclusion that there is a need for an unmoved mover. You can call the argument invalid; but you can't claim the claim that the conclusion is an entirely unwarranted assumption.

...

This is not to claim that Aquinas' arguments are right. They have been rather famously refuted - for instance, by Kant. Dawkins could have just cited Kant.


As to:

As far as the second, no idea, have no interest in bullshit fields of study such as theology(or parapsychology like a BS posted in another post in this thread).


Your interest is quite beside the point. You asked why Dawkins was attacked. In this instance, his claims were attacked because he claimed:

Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.


But, as I stated in my post, Summa Theologica goes on to derive God's attributes based on the previously given existence arguments. Again, I'm not arguing for the correctness of Aquinas' arguments; just that to claim they are not even there is, to say the least, extreme sloppiness, and, as such, subject to attack.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 OP
RZM Dec 2011 #1
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #5
Goblinmonger Dec 2011 #7
mr blur Dec 2011 #2
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #4
tama Dec 2011 #8
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #9
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #19
tama Dec 2011 #21
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #27
tama Dec 2011 #33
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #42
tama Dec 2011 #48
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #54
tama Dec 2011 #55
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #61
tama Dec 2011 #63
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #75
tama Dec 2011 #77
edhopper Dec 2011 #14
tama Dec 2011 #22
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #28
tama Dec 2011 #34
edhopper Dec 2011 #50
tama Dec 2011 #51
edhopper Dec 2011 #64
tama Dec 2011 #70
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #76
tama Dec 2011 #78
rrneck Dec 2011 #3
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #6
Jim__ Dec 2011 #10
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #11
LineLineLineReply That is the conclusion of the argument.
Jim__ Dec 2011 #12
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #25
Jim__ Dec 2011 #29
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #32
tama Dec 2011 #39
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #41
tama Dec 2011 #43
tama Dec 2011 #38
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #46
tama Dec 2011 #52
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #58
tama Dec 2011 #23
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #26
tama Dec 2011 #36
edhopper Dec 2011 #16
Jim__ Dec 2011 #18
edhopper Dec 2011 #20
Jim__ Dec 2011 #30
edhopper Dec 2011 #49
Jim__ Dec 2011 #56
edhopper Dec 2011 #65
tama Dec 2011 #24
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #31
tama Dec 2011 #35
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #40
tama Dec 2011 #44
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #53
tama Dec 2011 #57
Humanist_Activist Dec 2011 #60
tama Dec 2011 #62
edhopper Dec 2011 #66
tama Dec 2011 #71
edhopper Dec 2011 #72
tama Dec 2011 #74
Deep13 Dec 2011 #13
tama Dec 2011 #37
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #15
MarkCharles Dec 2011 #45
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #47
MarkCharles Dec 2011 #68
Lost-in-FL Dec 2011 #69
iris27 Dec 2011 #59
MarkCharles Dec 2011 #67
iris27 Dec 2011 #73
digonswine Dec 2011 #17
Please login to view edit histories.