Theli

So he does claim that not all things require a mover? The problem here ofcourse is, how could the first mover move itself? Where did the "move" come from?

And BTW, I don't think we can call the first event (mover) a creator. Rather a cause.

St. Robert

Theli,

Aquinas claims that the first mover requires no other. This is what defines the first mover. Call the first mover whatever you wish. I called him Jesus.

If you really want to know the first mover and how he moves, ask Jesus.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: St. Robert ]</p>

Synaesthesia

St. Robert,
What you really mean is to ask you, some other advocate of christianity, the bible or talk to Jesus as if to an invisible friend.

I tell you, nothing is more eerie than for someone who has every day prayed to God, talked to angels and saints to find that he has been talking to himself.

In my case, it made me a little more critical of why the little voices of Jesus and my guardian angel told me nothing I didn't know.

As for you and other Christians, forgive me, but the knowledge you have to offer is decidedly unimpressive considering the putative omniscience of the intelligence behind it.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

Adrian Selby

If you really want to know the first mover and how he moves, ask Jesus

I did. But I got no response. Perhaps I'm not asking the right question, what question should I ask?

(Dear me, how trite is this! Why don't I ask any other religion's deity?)

Theli

Robert...

This sounds like the words from a parrot. You simply make a claim wich you have no idea what it means, what consequences it has or why it should be considered true. And then, when I question your statement, you simply make the same claim again. Confirming that you are nothing but a parrot saying something you read with no idea what it means.

"Polly want a cracker!"

Call what, what I wich?
You haven't even showed me that there is a first mover. And I don't see why I should invent a name for it. I'd rather try to find out what it actually was, and then call it what it actually was, not what I wish it was.

1. "I" as in you, have no worth in this discussion. Your arguments might, but not you.
2. "called". You don't call it anymore?
3. "him". Him refers to a human (and in some cases an animal), and we have no reason to assume that neither humans or animals had anything to do with the first cause.
4. "Jesus". Wasn't jesus a guy who lived 2000 years ago? You could just aswell say that Elvis created the universe. Or my dog. It's the same insanity.

Why not ask Elvis?
Clearly better than asking you.

Supramolecular

St. Robert

"Question: How is a person able to maintain an open mind in a closed system?"

Who was it that said:

"It's good to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out"?

acronos

Several have already adequately addressed the flaws in <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm" target="_blank">this</a> supposedly irrefutable argument for the existence of God. I wanted to throw my voice into the chorus.

This proof fails for several reasons. The problem is that the test of infinity is invalid. It is possible to count from 1 to infinity if you count an infinite number of times. It is also possible to count from zero to negative infinity if you count an infinite number of times. It is not possible to count to an end-point of an infinite list.

This paragraph -
- is completely false. It takes a second infinity to traverse an infinity so you will never reach the end. There IS no number that can be imagined for which there is not a larger number that can be imagined. Mr. Lenardos changed infinite to finite as soon as he found an end point. It is important to not that HE did this. It is not a result of the argument. If infinites exist, by definition they do not have end-points.

If his argument were true, which it is not, then his "god" would also fall prey to the argument.

I actually agree with his conclusions. Our local universe, with a lower case 'u', is finite. In his graphic in diagram 1.2 he correctly include "always existed" in Everything. I think of the Universe with a capital 'U' as "Everything" that exists so my 'U'niverse includes his "always existed" thing. I agree that this thing created our 'u'niverse. His argument has not proven that this thing is intelligent or that it did it on purpose. It only proves that it exists. His entire argument boils down to "something has always existed." How is this any threat to atheism or agnosticism unless he wants to call the 'U'niverse' God. I don't think that any atheist or agnostic would deny that some "gods" could be defined that do actually exist. For instance, I have no problems with someone claiming that their Gun is "God." It is when he or she attributes intelligence to that gun that I start to take issue.

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: acronos ]</p>

St. Robert

Theli,

You are the very type of person that Jesus refers to in Matthew 11:25, when He thanks His Father for hiding the truth of salvation from those who think that they are wise.

lcb

okay, this argument. atheists are so insecure that they spend countless hours shadow boxing with this "non existant God" and its believers,when they could be out on a date with a real live boy or girl or making alot of money in the comodities or investment markets....thus, there must be some compelling inner drive. 2. we dont have perfect knowledge.Islam,hinduism,budhism etc and all other religions' salvation is based on doing good works and avoding evil...Christianity is based on accepting Jesus Christ( a risk averse person without perfect knowledge would do good works and try to avoid evil and accept Jesus Christ, thereby hedging one's bets)....just in case there was an intelligent designer or a first cause, etc

Automaton

This is not an argument. Where is your logical structure, evidence, justification, anything? Unless you simply mean "argument" as in being disputatious, all you have is a simple-minded diatribe.
Sorry pot, as the kettle, I'll have to point out your flagrant hypocracy. If we're insecure, then what the fuck are you doing here? As long as jerk-offs just like you (thanks Maynard J. Keenan ) exist in this world, people with normal brain functionality will continue to debate them.
This is my hobby. I find the mind of the believer to be extremely interesting as a classic specimen of a delusional character.
Your great argument is this:
1. I think all atheists are insecure about their beliefs, because I happen to be a dipshit.
2. Therefore, they have an "inner drive", whatever that means.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Care to give us something that you didn't completely pull out of your ass?
Except for you, of course, the Christian who knows absolutely everything?
This is an extremely, extremely simplified view, and is obviously wrong in some cases (Islam, anyone?) Simply repeating what your Sunday School conditioning agent spoon-fed you eh?
This is perhaps one of the reasons that Christianity is so popular. "You can be as evil as you want and you'll get into heaven no matter what." It's simply a psychological guilt-absolving mechanism. Why do you think people pray to nothing for "forgiveness" or go to "confession"?
The bet is always in favour of the atheists. If some God exists, he is either just or injust. If the former, atheists have nothing to fear from this being, and if the latter then both theists and atheists have something to fear. Why don't you just get some sort of infinitely powerful computer to work out all the infinite possibilities for supernatural punishment/reward based on epistemic states and then believe in all of them, even the infinite amount that will contradict eachother directly, just to be "risk averse".
Sorry, "just in case" threats don't mean anything to me, and are certainly not any form of argument I'm aware of.