1: A deconstruction of Aquinas's jazz
Aquinas makes the mistake of assuming the 'first cause' is sentient by calling it a 'prime mover'. The only thing this argument can show is that something caused itself, nothing more. Nothing in this argument implies intelligence, let alone a christian god.
On causality, this argument is abusive because it says that there was initially something that caused itself, and then everything else was caused. If one thing can cause itself, then so can another. (That is, unless aquinas wants to provide me with a criterion from distinguishing between the two, which he never does) Therefore we have no reason to believe him when he predicates something as self causing, because he can never identify it to us in the first place.
Furthermore, it makes certain assumptions about time and space, namely that space can only exist in time and that time is not infinite. My first assertion is that time is the medium in which space is presented to us, and therfore need not exist if we are not there to perceive it, so the whole concept of a first cause is from our subjective perceptions, and doesn't even make an attempt at objectivism. My second assertion is that we make the assumption that time only moves in one direction, namely the future. This mistake is once again the result of human vanity. There is no reason why time can not only have a seemingly infinite future, but an infinite past. If there is an infinite past there need be no first cause.
In his fourth way, he assumes that things like goodness are emprical facts, but he never sets out to prove to us that goodness exists objectivally,
For the fifth way, if i wanted to, i could cling onto pure chance and you could never disprove me. So i could go on believing this all happened by chance and there would be nothing you could say about it. But, if you really want to be funny, you can say that aquinas has no way of distinguishing between an orderly, intelligently designed universe vs one occuring by chance. Since he has nothing to compare this universe to, there's no way he can provide us with a criterion for intelligent design.
=P
2: let's not take logic too seriously.
Even if you believe in god, you have no reason to believe that he provided you with a way of thinking that mirrored the world perfectly. All arguments in favor of rationalism are always circular, therefore you can never affirm logic as a criterion for truth.
For those of us who are down to earth, and at least believe that man evolved will recognize that we think the way we do because it worked for our ancestors. Thinking "logically" enhanced our survival. This is funny, because it means that rationalism, the greatest enemy of empiricism is actually based on induction =)
I am sure I have made some mistakes here, because i am not choosing my words carefully. If I deny rationalism with rationalism my argument is self negating. However, I can make empirical statements to disprove rationalism, which was what i meant to do, and which is what i think i did when i talked about evolution.
3: the unimportance of god
since, you seem to buy aquinas and causality (I actually constructed a clever proof for determinism, but it will do me little good here) there is no free will. Sorry, you are predetermined to do everything. What's that? You say "I had a choice"?. No, you don't. When you make decisions, given your state of mind, you were bound to make a certain choice. If you feel like arguing against this, A) I will meet your challenge and B)you are vain.
Where does this leave us? Well, free will is a presupposition to the question "what ought i to do?" (kant) You may have asked yourself the question, but only because you can put the words together. You are not a free and autonomous agent. You are going to do whatever it is your going to do, whether or not there is a god.
So, whatever is it that you're going to do? People do things for 2 reasons.
1) People are internally motivated: food, sex etc. God has never revealed himself in the human mind except in the form of human vanity
2) People do things because the situation calls for it. I think pyschologists call it 'situationally induced'. An example is that during WWII, germans would see jews starving etc, but wouldn't help them on their own. However, when the jews asked for help, i.e. created a situation in which the germans would have to respond, the germans acted.
What all this entails is that god has no place in human action, he can be an 'end' of humanity, only a means.
heaven =O
Wow you weren't expecting me to say that were you.
well, w.e
I hate it when christians try to be intellectuals, you believe in faith, you are nihilists so stop trying to argue logically.
-joe
™ Version 4.2
