It is a logical fallacy to attack an argument in any way except by showing that it is more reasonable for one of its premises to be false or that form of the argument is invalid. You have not even cited a single ontological argument, so all you've done from the above is commit logical fallacies.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer to you. You keep making basic errors in logic and when I point them out to you, you prefer to try to mock me rather than correct your error, which is just childish. So you're saying that anyone who lived before quantum physics should have found these arguments to be convincing? Right, now please explain in detail how quantum physics is a settled science, that there is only one reasonable interpretation of it, and how that interpretation of it tells us anything that contradicts these arguments or anything else in philosophy. /facepalm

Aquinas claimed everything that begins to exist has a cause, which is very different from declaring that everything must have a cause. When someone makes an a valid argument, the conclusion follows logically and necessarily from their premises, so they aren't assuming it to be true. *sigh*

Non-being doesn't exist by definition, so it's not something that's hard to figure out. So when Aquinas shows through various other arguments what attributes this being would necessarily have and we see that it matches the attributes that the classical God of theism would have if he were to exist, then what practical reason is there not to say that this being is God? He gives reasons to think that those premises are true, so he is not assuming they are true. In order to attack his argument, you need to give reasons why it is more reasonable to say that his premises are false or to attack the form of his argument. But are you saying his argument proves the existence of God if you grant those two premises? *yawn*

Saying that I should be embarrassed does not show that the form of his argument is invalid.

Does that mean there are things that begin to exists (have a cause) and things that exist without a beginning (without cause)? What is the logical premise for the uncaused type of existance?

1. Why does it have to be a single! sentient! being! in the first place? Why not some random natural effect? Why not multiple beings? Maybe the Frnok grxbled the Tnistis in some previous or transcend universe and we simply can't know who or what Frnok and Tnistis are and how to grxbl, since they have no meaning in this universe?

2. Even if some timeless sentient being created the whole universe a few thousand billion years ago, why would it have any influence on our lives now? Why would someone assume to be personally watched and judged by it? On the scale of time and space of our universe the planet Earth and mankind are next to nothing.

3. Even if there was some single sentient being that created this universe and watched and waited for billions of years for sentient life to evolve - why would it reveal itself only to a rather minor tribe in a specific location of thousands of tribes and civilizations scattered around that fleck of dust in space we call home?

For me the first flawed assumption is that the universe was created with a purpose.
The second flawed assumption is, that based on the first, mankind somehow is that purpose and the universe was created for it.
The third flawed assumption is, that if both are somehow true, my creation myth is somehow more true that the creation myths of other people - that I belong to the chosen ones that worship the true creator while the majority is wrong.
The fourth flaw is assuming that this omnipresent, omnipotent being that created a huge universe for the tiny humans cares for me personally.

For the sake of being devil's advocate (hehehe) I'll try to be an inferior Soyeong for a little bit. Just to see if I understand him correctly. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Soyeong. Now disclaimer: I don't agree with Soyeong, I just want to know if this entire discussion had any point whatsoever.

The answer to most of what you have said would be: Because there's evidence for one, omnipotent being creating the universe, as opposed to the complete lack of evidence for Frnok and Tnisis. In light of that, if universe had to be created by a being extremely powerful, it had to be God. And the assumption that universe had to be created was made by using facts we see and know are true for our knowledge of the universe and our understanding of the world around us. Well, not to generalize, understanding of the ... Person ... Soyeong keeps quoting.

But there's also evidence that before anything else there were Muspilheim (fire) and Nilfheim (ice) and an endlessly deep chasm (Ginnungagap) between them. And when the sparks of Niflheim mixed with the fumes of Nilfheim Ymir, a female non-sentient giant was created. Ymir gave birth to some gods through her armpits who slew their mother and created the world from her body.

There is evidence that at first there was a lifeless sea of chaos Nu from which emerged a pyramid shaped mound that was formed by eight gods. From the mound emerged the sun, the mound itself became earth.

In fact, if you look at many different creation myths, many of them state that at beginning there was only water. And from that everything else emerged. That is pretty strong evidence for some kind of fluid being there first. Maybe "emerging" is a metaphor for the Big Bang and and the water for some kind of chaotic/fluid timeless state.

There is also evidence that the universe came from some kind of "egg". The breaking of the egg's shell could also relate to the Big Bang, or the universe is still incased in the egg and will develop into something very different once the egg breaks open. This would support theories of an endless cycle since our universe could spawn one or more new eggs - new universes.

There is (very old) evidence that there must be an eternal goddess that went by the names of Isis, Ishtar, Easter, Astarte, Ostera that has a male companion that is born (by Her) and dies every single year. Hey, and wait, one of her symbols is the egg - for rebirth.

There is evidence that the world would end during the lifetime of the contemporaries of Jesus. Would that mean it's all over and we living here already are the wicked that got resurrected after 1000 years and await the second death? Hey that would explain a lot about the state the world is in...

What does that mean, you think you can interpret good stuff into Leviticus?

Yeah it is like rectangles and squares. All are recangles, but not all are squares.

Oh, so I can have fun all my life, and then I'll just repent. I guess that is not too bad.

Then I really don't understand why you worship this thing, all the horrible things it did there, we should fight it.
You are your fallacies...I did not need to cite one, because we were already talking about one.

You are projecting...

No, I said they had a good excuse to not ridicule them outright. Unlike you.

It is not my job to educate you, find out for yourself.

Yeah, that is Crag Hacks and your way. Guess we can excuse Aqui for that.

What? did that have anything do to with what I quoted? I don't know anymore, too lazy to look back.

Because from that conclusion alot of shit follows, like religion.

No, I am saying his premises are baseless assumptions. But now that you mention it, no.

Yeah saying it doesn't, but I know you are feeling it!

You have quoted one of Aquinas' arguments, but that argument is not an ontological argument. In spite of the fact that there are modern ontological arguments, you dismissed them all as being outdated without even looking at any of them, which is not only wrong, but is also a logical fallacy. You're making another basic error in logic here that I'm trying to help you with, so this is not me projecting. In logic, saying that an argument is valid means that the premises and conclusion are so related that it is absolutely impossible for the premises to be true unless the conclusion is true also. For instance:

1.) All men are mortal.
2.) Socrates was a man.
3.) Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

It is impossible for premises 1 and 2 to be true unless the conclusion 3 is also true, so this argument is valid. If you think the premises 1 and 2 are true, then you should also think the conclusion is true, even if you previously disagreed with it. In a similar way, someone before quantum mechanics who thought that the premises of Aquinas' argument were true and the form was valid should logically and necessarily come to the conclusion that God exists. There was no doubt in my mind that you were incapable of answering that question and that you would respond with only bluster. You made the claim, "philosophy was useful before quantum physics, but for about a hundred years now it hasn't helped" so you bear the burden of proof to support that claim. As has been said before, claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so I dismiss you claim as being worthless until you back it up. So you're once again back at not having dealt with Aquinas' argument. "Nothing" means non-being, which doesn't exist by definition, so they had every reason to think that there was no nothing, just like we do today. This is another very basic error in logic. If something is true, then you should believe that it is true, regardless of whether or not you like what follows from it being true. It is illogical to deny a sound argument simply because you don't like the conclusion. I get that you keep asserting that, but you very clearly have no idea what a baseless assumption is. A baseless assumption has no grounds for thinking that is true, so if WLC gives scientific and philosophical reasons for thinking his premises are true, then he has provided grounds to think they are true, which means he is not making baseless assumptions.

In order to attack his argument, you need to show that his reasons for thinking those premises are true are faulty. You've also made the claim that his argument is invalid, so it's not good enough to simply assert that, you need to show how it is possible for his premises to be true without his conclusion also being true. Simply not liking the conclusion doesn't cut it.

The concept of intelligent design is outside of scientific proof, empirical evidence, even falsification etc..

Arguing about something that is outside of the rules required to argue, doesn't that make a discussion about the subject redundant?

If something has a cause, then its beginning was when it was caused. Something that is eternal doesn't have a beginning, so it is incoherent for it to be said to have a cause. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't have a cause, but if it is finite, then it has a beginning and a cause. If there is being that caused the universe, then it could not be dependent on the universe for its existence, and thus must be beyond space and time, and therefore eternal. It is incoherent to ask what caused an eternal being. Edward Feser does a much better job explaining this than me, so I encourage you to read his book on Aquinas.

http://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908

Saying something is a being just means that it is something that exists. If this being doesn't have a cause, then it is not dependent on anything for its existence.

"There can only possible be one such being because it would be impossible in principle to distinguish more than one. We could not coherently appeal to some unique form one such thing has to distinguish it from others of its kind because then it would not simply be an act of existing, but an act of existing plus this certain form. Likewise, we could not associate it with some particular parcel of matter, because then it would not be subsistent existence, but material existence, and dependent on matter for its being." - Edward Feser

"As the cause of space and time, this cause must an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. The only two things that fit that description are abstract objects, like numbers, or an intelligent mind. Abstract objects can't cause anything, therefore this cause is a personal, transcendent mind.

How else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then cause could never exist without its effect. If the cause were permanently present, then the effect would be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a person agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any antecedent determining conditions. Thus, is is not just the transcendent cause of the universe, but also its personal creator." - William Lane Craig If it turns out that there is some place else where the universe doesn't follow rules of logic, then I can correct my error and move on. But until then, I see no credible reason to take that into consideration. It is possible that this thing is the cause of Global Warming, but if you were to postulate it as the cause, scientists would consider you just as crazy and philosophers would. You're mixing up the argument for the classical God of theism with an argument for the God of Christianity. If it is an historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, then this God would have the same identity as the Christian God, but even if Christianity is false, I think it is significant to prove the existence of the classical God of theism. If this God is the Christian God, then it should be believed that God did behave that way without necessary needing to know why we think God would.

The universe has a number of properties that appear to be finely tuned because if they were altered by just a fraction, the universe would not permit life to form. It is not a be a safe assumption to make that life would be possible to evolve in a smaller universe. Nothing comes from non-being, so a random natural cause would still need an explanation for its existence. Again, all of this again all of this is based on the particular identity of this being. If Jesus rose from the dead, the it validates his claims, so these things are not just assumed to be true.

I think the only way to account for the formation of those beliefs is to grant that there is evidence for them. I must point out again that Aquinas' Five Ways were not for the specific identity of that God, so which creation stories are true, if any, are a separate argument. However, if his arguments are sound, then they show there is a being that necessarily exists, which is incompatible with some of creation stories.

I think what sets Christianity apart is that it many of the people, places, and events that the Bible talks about can be corroborated. The truth of Christianity stands or falls on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. The issue here is that Jesus has prophesied the destruction of the Temple and his disciples had incorrectly associated the destruction of the Temple with the end of the world. They asked Jesus two questions, where the second question has that assumption in it and Jesus answered both, but it would be a mistake to take his answer to the first question and apply it to the second question. He said the destruction of the Temple would happen during their lifetime, which it did, but that no one would know the day or hour of the end of the world.

I don't consider Intelligent Design to be a particularly strong argument, especially when compared with Aquinas' arguments. However, I do think it has a point that when you come across a watch, you have no scientific proof that it was created and you can't falsify that, but it is nonetheless reasonable to think the best explanation for it is that there was an intelligent designer. I'm not 100% sure that this is directed at me, but I do not think God is outside of the rules required to argue for His existence.

Close, but not quite. A being that was powerful enough to create the universe would in the very least have an attribute that corresponds to our idea of what God would be like if God existed. I think if you prove that this being also necessarily had other attributes that also correspond to our idea of the God, then it becomes reasonable to label this being as God. Whether this being has the same identity as the God of Christianity is a different matter.

I think scientific and philosophical arguments show that the universe had a beginning, so it is not an assumption. WLC's Kalam argument uses that as a premises, but Aquinas' arguments do not.

Can god defy logic? If he can he's outside the rules required to argue thus it makes it redundant.

Also, if god is eternal with no cause why would a non-causal being have a cause to create something?

If he has no cause yet created the universe anyway what's the difference between god as an explanation to existance and spontaneous emergence? I can see none other than a lifeless being that's basically the equilavent of a fundamental force.

I think what Nirth is getting at here is that while God answers some questions, he/she/it creates more. So instead of jumping at conclusions without actually knowing all the facts, we should first attempt to understand the universe and then what caused its creation - not the other way around. Mostly because it's very likely that whatever we come up with will be proven wrong.

I'll explain in due time. The world is not ready yet.

Well okay I'll wait on the universe but how about the platypus? What the hell were you thinking with that!?