That is the conclusion of the argument. (Reply #12)

In the discussion thread: Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]

Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:31 PM

Jim__ (13,708 posts)

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

78 replies	Author	Time	Post
Why is Dr. Dawkins and some others such controversial figures? [View all]	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	OP
You have a point, but you could easily say the same thing about Tim Tebow	RZM	Dec 2011	#1
Don't know, never followed that particular controversy...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#5
This is random thoughts, so maybe not as eloquent as I could be.	Goblinmonger	Dec 2011	#7
I don't think he's so controversial over here in the U.K.	mr blur	Dec 2011	#2
Exactly, also a big fan of David Attenborough myself...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#4
"Fundamentalist materialist"	tama	Dec 2011	#8
A fellow "Scientist" who believes in telepathy and generational memory...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#9
...or like Ernst Mayr who also disagreed with Dawkins	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#19
Being both	tama	Dec 2011	#21
A great experimentalist? He derives conclusions from...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#27
Are talking about the same guy?	tama	Dec 2011	#33
Ancedotal evidence is useless without repeatability, do you understand...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#42
Read again.	tama	Dec 2011	#48
Who are these "authoritarian orthodoxies" the ones who couldn't...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#54
Perhaps	tama	Dec 2011	#55
An honest person would say the results are inconclusive...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#61
That's what Sheldrake	tama	Dec 2011	#63
What evidence?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#75
Belief	tama	Dec 2011	#77
There is no valid	edhopper	Dec 2011	#14
It is quite common	tama	Dec 2011	#22
Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#28
Stop misrepresenting science. You can believe whatever the fuck you want...	tama	Dec 2011	#34
Like telepathy	edhopper	Dec 2011	#50
Like the belief	tama	Dec 2011	#51
Oh good	edhopper	Dec 2011	#64
To tell you the truth	tama	Dec 2011	#70
So basically you got nothing as far as evidence is concerned? n/t	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#76
How was your day?	tama	Dec 2011	#78
He's willing to take them on.	rrneck	Dec 2011	#3
Because he's critical of religion, and possibly also because he's pro-evolution	LeftishBrit	Dec 2011	#6
"...under direct attack by many people who use misinformation, lies, and ignorance as their weapons.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#10
This is interesting...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#11
That is the conclusion of the argument.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#12
You attack the whole Dawkins's God Delution based on a paragraph made to be a 'filler'?	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#25
No. I'm merely pointing to one paragraph that demonstrates why his book was attacked.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#29
So that justifies death threats?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#32
There are people who like philosophy	tama	Dec 2011	#39
I prefer conversations that are useful and relevant to the discussion at hand...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#41
You are entitled to your opinion	tama	Dec 2011	#43
"Fuck Kant"?	tama	Dec 2011	#38
The difference between me and a coffee house philosopher is...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#46
You are always wrong	tama	Dec 2011	#52
...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#58
First mover	tama	Dec 2011	#23
Big Bang cosmology doesn't require either "metaphysical" presumption...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#26
Indeed	tama	Dec 2011	#36
Then all things in motion do not need to be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#16
What is the basis for your "then"?	Jim__	Dec 2011	#18
Aquinas says all thing must be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#20
No, he doesn't: Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.	Jim__	Dec 2011	#30
Poor phrasing on my part. Emphasis on put, as in - all things in motion MUST be put in motion.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#49
Dismantled Aquinas'argument?	Jim__	Dec 2011	#56
I see that he did.	edhopper	Dec 2011	#65
Big Bang	tama	Dec 2011	#24
What does the Big Bang have to do with a branch of philosophy?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#31
What does 'causality" have to do with a branch of philosophy	tama	Dec 2011	#35
Science moved beyond philosophy by the late 19th century...	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#40
And philosophy came back	tama	Dec 2011	#44
So not only are you misrepresenting science, but history as well?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#53
20th century	tama	Dec 2011	#57
Since when were all of them philosophers?	Humanist_Activist	Dec 2011	#60
For the purpose of this discussion	tama	Dec 2011	#62
What you don't seem to understand in your all too broad	edhopper	Dec 2011	#66
Perhaps you are unawere	tama	Dec 2011	#71
Quite well aware	edhopper	Dec 2011	#72
Partial explanation	tama	Dec 2011	#74
They threaten the power structure.	Deep13	Dec 2011	#13
"Challenging people's core values and beliefs always makes them a bit grouchy."	tama	Dec 2011	#37
Simply because he is an outspoken atheist.	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#15
Spoken like a true believer.	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#45
Ahem...	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#47
Then you FAILED to state how.	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#68
Don't give yourself a heart attack over nothing.	Lost-in-FL	Dec 2011	#69
MC, you might get a little less needlessly upset if you go into A&A and write	iris27	Dec 2011	#59
Why would I spoil the fun ?	MarkCharles	Dec 2011	#67
Pretty sure everyone else got it, because most here do take note of who posts what.	iris27	Dec 2011	#73
I can't say I read the whole thing---	digonswine	Dec 2011	#17

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.