Ask An Atheist Anything., Actually, don't. Keep it relevant. Aliteration is cool. Options

[NoSex]

Alright, this is sort of in response to Podo's (monster's) "feeble attempt" thread.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of any god whatsoever. Any questions?

[NoSex]

What do you think about Deism?

Deism bores me - it's also sort of a dead movement. On one instance, I can't imagine how people, today, make the transition from theist to deist without, instead, stepping a few more feet into the realm of atheism. Deism is, supposedly, a scientific decision - it removes the more supernatural and unbelievable aspects of traditional theism. However, though impersonal and often apathetic - the god of deism is still a god. Given the scientific atmosphere of today I fail to really see the appeal of deism but for a comfortable transition between theism and atheism. I made a similar transition myself. Before denouncing god altogether, I imagined that he might just not be like anything described in the Bible. But, I still had no basis for such a belief - though I had removed the more outlandish and immediately fairy-tale-esq aspects of religious belief, I still believed in something for which there was no evidence. At that point my deism had blurred into atheism, eventually disappearing altogether.

What do you think of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a god from an ontological approach?

Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways," though proposed nearly eight centuries ago, remain, to this day, to be the most popular and often only arguments which are repeated in an effort to prove the existence of a god. And, as I have explored all of them rather extensively, I have found them to be embarrassingly self-defeating on the basis of their own premises.

(As goes your mention of an ontological approach? Are you asking me to compare them to reality or are you referencing the Ontological Argument made popular be Rene Descartes? In the case of the later, I'm an empiricist - I don't believe in a priori knowledge - thus I find all ontological arguments for the existence of god meaningless.)

To address the "Five Ways":

Aquinas' "Argument from Motion" posits that all things which move must have been moved, and then later concludes that god is an unmoved mover. This argument is self-defeating for its conclusion is contrary to its premise. If everything which moves must first be moved itself, then god must, if he is to move, be moved himself.

Aquinas' second and third ways ("Argument from Efficient Causes", and "Argument from Possibility and Necessity") largely resemble his first. All together they comprise what is known as the Cosmological Argument - which is, in of itself, just like the "Argument from Motion." It is, alone, very unconvincing. Not only is it self-defeating, it also ignores temporal inaccuracies in its model. The Cosmological Argument wants the universe to be created, but if the universe is the totality of all things, within it is also the fabric of time. And, as creation is a temporal concept, without the universe (and the fabric of time), talk of "creation" is quite meaningless. In fact, talk of "anytime before" the universe is absurd - what time is therefor before time itself?

Aquinas' fourth and fifth ("Argument from Gradation of Being", and "Argument from Design") ways were designed to identify the creator he felt he proved in his first three ways as the Christian God. The fourth way is something that has nearly disappeared entirely - it's impossible to identify what one thing is "better" than the rest. Such a concept is often considered subjectivist and meaningless. But, the fifth way has indeed become very popular (if not the most popular argument for the existence of a god). The fifth way today is known as The Teleological Argument or The Argument from Design. These arguments, much like the Cosmological Argument, are self-defeating. They posit that things which "appear" to have purpose, have complexity, or have order, must have an intelligent designer. In this case, would not the intelligent designer himself require design for he would be that much more complex and "amazing?" Again, the arguments are contrary to their conclusions. If the argument stands on the improbability and the unlikelihood of our "natural universe" existing without intelligent direction than the argument must also, in its essence, posit the even further improbability and unlikelihood of an exceedingly intelligent, complex, and ordered god existing without intelligent direction. In this way the Argument Design actually supports a natural mechanism (like evolution) which moves in a non-complex, non-intelligent, and non-directed, way towards complexity, intelligence, and seeming direction - for this is the most likely mover in the case of such argumentation - it has within itself the most minimal requirement for intelligent design as it is largely simplistic.

[It was a long weekend - I'll try to get to some of these other questions soon. I'm looking forward to addressing the claim that atheism is a belief held in "faith." That's funny.]

[kryogenix]

Sorry for the late response, I don't come here often anymore.

(lol at how pissed some people are getting in this topic)

Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways," though proposed nearly eight centuries ago, remain, to this day, to be the most popular and often only arguments which are repeated in an effort to prove the existence of a god. And, as I have explored all of them rather extensively, I have found them to be embarrassingly self-defeating on the basis of their own premises.

Aquinas' "Argument from Motion" posits that all things which move must have been moved, and then later concludes that god is an unmoved mover. This argument is self-defeating for its conclusion is contrary to its premise. If everything which moves must first be moved itself, then god must, if he is to move, be moved himself.

Do you think you might be interpreting the argument wrong?

If all temporal things that move must first be moved by something else, this requires that must be something be something that came first that wasn't, something that exists OUTSIDE of the temporal universe, to which the first statement does not apply. This is what is called God (or a god if you prefer, since it doesn't necessarily prove the Christian God).

I believe that is what Aquinas was trying to say and I believe that he actually addressed this in his original writings, so I disagree that it is self defeating.