How do I disprove Aquinas 5 ways? I dont want to believe in god.

How do I disprove Aquinas’ 5 ways? I don’t want to believe in god.

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look up dreamybullxx's X (former twitter)

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Love him.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    which god?

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    One through three you just ask what moved/caused/was-necessary-for God. And if God didn't need it why does the universe?

    Fourth is a goofy ontological argument disproved by the greater than relation on the natural numbers

    Fifth is just an intelligent design hidden by the even dumber concept of teleology.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >One through three you just ask what moved/caused/was-necessary-for God.

      If an infinite regress is impossible, then it follows that there must be some noncontingent thing

      >And if God didn't need it why does the universe?

      Inductive reasoning shows that all things in the universe require a cause outside of themselves, that being God (though I disagree with this reasoning, I'm

      The argument from contingency falls flat because the idea of something being contingent on another, and of these being fundamental aspects of the universe, seem to be ill founded. I see the idea of contingency as just an a-posteriori method of applying physical observations to metaphysical study. They only really make sense in a physical context, and in metaphysics there is nothing stopping a being from being both non-contingent (not reliant on anything) and non-necessary (not a fundamental property of existence/noncontradiction).

      The first two can be discarded as weaker forms of the 3rd. The last two are just bad science.

      )

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Fourth is a goofy ontological argument disproved by the greater than relation on the natural numbers
      Wtf are you smoking? Do you even understand the fourth way?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Wtf are you smoking? Do you even understand the fourth way?
        Fourth way is that gradiations imply a greatest thing. Which the natural numbers clearly disprove since there is no largest natural number. Even Aquinas's example of there being a maximum heat is false in modern physics. Aquinas is goofy as frick don't be butthurt.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.
          >IN THINGS
          Numbers aren't things. Besides, there is no "gradation of being" among numbers, so you're using gradation in an extremely equivocal way. You can be more or less good, you can be more or less correct, but you can't be more or less a number. It's either or in that case.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Numbers aren't things
            Is heat a thing? You skipped over that part of my post and Aquinas specifically mentions it as a gradiation to use as an example. Aquinas thought there was a maximum heat which modern science has shown to be wrong. His own example to show that gradiations imply the existence of a greatest turns out to instead show the opposite. It's goofy as frick.
            >Besides, there is no "gradation of being" among numbers,
            Aquinas isn't talking about gradiation of being he's talking about gradiation of any sort. Goodness is not a measure of being. You're grasping at anything to make his nonsense argument make sense. God does not exist no matter how much you insist he does.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Aquinas thought there was a maximum heat which modern science has shown to be wrong.
            How so?

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas' arguments are not empirical evidence.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >tranime

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm pretty sure almost all include an empirical premise at some point. This would be like saying you can't make a mathematical argument that involves a premise with a physics law in it because it's technically not empirical.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Tranime poster learns that metaphysics isn't empirical
      Riveting, it's almost like empiricism deals with phenomena's appearance (the effects and measurements) and not it's nature (what it fundamentally is)

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        How can you figure out what something fundamentally is without relying on observation? Further how can you make a generalization without relying on observations over many trials? It came to you in a dream?

        Plus his arguments often ARE empirical. The prime mover argument only makes sense because experience tells us about why objects move.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Plus his arguments often ARE empirical
          I love this also. Christcucks insist that Aquinas's ways aren't empirical but then base everyone of them on an empirical observation about the universe. Everything seeming to require a cause is a highly empirical observation. Same with gradiation implying a greatest and things seeming to have a purpose or teleology. All empirical observations.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You cannot

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    By his disavowal of his writings at the end of his life when he saw the power of the mystic experience

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas' main mistake is very simple: he can't look beyong teleology, and doesn't understand that many things aren't caused by a simple singular cause, but are the result of numerous factors, many of which aren't beneficial to for instance species that die out. However, this does happen, something Aquinas' five ways doesn't explain. To him everything is a single cause and a single effect effect

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Leave Aquinas, Scotus is the final boss

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The argument from contingency falls flat because the idea of something being contingent on another, and of these being fundamental aspects of the universe, seem to be ill founded. I see the idea of contingency as just an a-posteriori method of applying physical observations to metaphysical study. They only really make sense in a physical context, and in metaphysics there is nothing stopping a being from being both non-contingent (not reliant on anything) and non-necessary (not a fundamental property of existence/noncontradiction).

    The first two can be discarded as weaker forms of the 3rd. The last two are just bad science.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God exists because I can imagine Him existing
    Good luck disproving this. Aquinas makes an airtight argument.

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aquinas was a reader of euclid, perhaps you should investigate euclid in order to prove Aquinas wrong

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    who gives a shit it's just autism. there is no such thing as a personal god and not even the clergy believe in that shit anyway, so you're going to spend a lot of time to be able to say
    >wow according to these hot mental gymnastics, god is real!
    >now time to live my life exactly the way i already was

    god will never talk to you except metaphorically which is the gayest kind. there is surely something better to do with so much time.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't know how anyone can read Aquinas and not see the obvious moronation going on in his thinking.
    All his points are gotchas for midwits with no possible logical steps in between. He makes moronic assertion upon moronic assertion and arrives at a conclusion he took straight out of his dumb homosexual ass.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    All theist apologetics set out to prove that the universe exists, and use the fact that the universe exists as a basis. Then they substitute God for the universe and act like they've proven God exists. Every time. Fun fact, the beginning of time can't have a cause, since cause predate their effect, and since there is no time before the first moment of time, by definition, it's impossible for it to have a cause. Also, any definition of "cause" that does not include "earlier in time" is literally not a cause.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *