I just don't know how you can stick at it so long. Another towering achievement. Do you feel you got what EJ's point ultimately was? It seemed to me he wanted to conduct the debate in a world of philosophical vagaries and each of the concrete examples you gave him were considered too basic to be taken seriously. Would a mighty god really hide himself in such a way that he could only be glanced at sideways like this?

It doesn't seem to me to the way an interventionist god would operate - even the OT god allegedly did actual stuff around the place that people see. Why is it so may theists so rapidly shove the argument into the philo morass? EJ is definitely a clever and engaging theist but his arguments are nothing you'd ever hear from the pulpit.

"Yeah, I knew what the point you were making was, of course, I was just pointing out that one can't go from there to affirming the first cause argument regardless. So we're still left with the same problem that is the first cause argument being your typical example of the irrationality of apologetics." If it is irrational, it's not because it's question begging, which is the charge I was responding to. (Keep in mind that the comment you responded to was not an attempt to "affirm to first cause argument regardless," but to counter a specific charge against it, viz. the charge that it's question begging.) Hambydammit claimed that the first premise assumed the conclusion; my demonstration that the first premise is consistent with both the conclusion *and* the negation of the conclusion refutes his criticism. However, you're wrong to claim that I couldn't "go from there" to "affirm the first cause argument." I couldn't do so if I was claiming that (5) is true, *but that wasn't my claim*. Rather, all I said is that the first premise is consistent with (5), and I could certainly go from there to "affirm the first cause argument" without contradiction.

"Maybe I just really want to stick to Aquinas - I have had so many Theists praise him up over the years, I would like to make it as plain as possible the failings in his arguments. I would like to see the assumptions made in his arguments listed, so I can nail 'em... And I would be best if a supporter puts them up, so I can't be accused of misrepresenting their hero." Bob, this sounds like a good idea. If you'd like, I'd be willing to go through Aquinas's First Way step by step, premise by premise, assumption by assumption, concept by concept, right to the conclusion. It would take a while to do this, and I can't guarantee a post/response each day on the topic (though I think I can guarantee a couple a week at a minimum -- sort of like a chess-by-mail game), but I think it would be fun and informative for both of us. I'm sure I'd learn quite a bit from you, and I'd hope to present you with a new idea here and there too. If you're interested, let me know, and I'll write a post with some ground-clearing in it (what the argument claims to show, what I mean when I say an argument is good, etc.) so we can get underway.

 

Quote:

At least it isn't the Ontological argument, which is proof that Theology is a hazard to mental health.

 

Luckily it is the sort of lunacy which doesn't represent a physical hazard to people around them, more like the guy in the park wandering around talking to himself, at least in the case of actual Theologians.

It does represent a threat to society in general, of course - having a formal 'discipline' still practiced based on such stupidity contributes to giving religious ideas way more respectability than they deserve. Which is none.

Anyway, the move these days has been long been to not lock the mentally ill away unless absolutely necessary, ie where they really are a direct threat to those around them or themselves.