Dude agrees that Dawkins made a correct point (that even if it's granted that there was a first cause there's no reason to say it was god). Dude says Dawkins disregards Aquinas's supporting arguments but then doesn't even say what they are.
I debated replying to you and @The_Only_Other, because I am under the impression that your minds are not open to learning. I decided to reply that others might see.
If Dawkins wants to challenge the first cause argument, then he can say there are no or many first causes. To say the proof is true, that there is one first cause, but to say this is not God, is lazy. Aquinas spent many pages explaining how, after you conclude the first cause, you can also conclude power and intelligence from it. Aquinas met his responsibility. Dawkins failed in addressing the rest of Aquinas. It is not that Youtuber's responsibility to teach you the rest of Aquinas. You can search for Aquinas lectures if you want that. The YouTuber states that Dawkins unfairly ignores the subsequent important steps in Aquinas' philosophy, and that YouTuber is completely correct about that. The YouTuber's job isn't to convince you that God exists. The YouTuber's job is to communicate that Dawkins' assessment of Aquinas is inadequate. That YouTuber is correct.
No one cares. We're sick of de-bunking the circle-jerking half-assed "Look God really does exist!!1!!1!" bullshit that comes out of the Christian community only to have more circle-jerking Christians come up with thousands more, even more half-assed arguments and expecting us to go through them with a fined tooth-comb. Don't have time for it, don't care.
If Dawkins wants to challenge the first cause argument, then he can say there are no or many first causes.
Can't prove it empirically, arguing in either direction is just a show of ignorance.
To say the proof is true, that there is one first cause, but to say this is not God, is lazy.
Not relevant, if I can't show the proof is true or false any conclusion coming from the assumption can be dismissed off-hand.
Pointing out that a foundation built on quicksand will not support your house, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and lazily making an argument (even an incorrect or uniformed one) that even if the foundation built in quicksand will support your house, your walls won't bear the load of your roof, makes no difference to whether the house will stand.
Aquinas spent many pages explaining how, after you conclude the first cause, you can also conclude power and intelligence from it.
Aquinas made a bunch of unsubstantiated, bullshit arguments that are based on a foundation that has no empirical support to begin with. Astrophysicists make arguments supported with sound, rigorous mathematics all the time only to have them (more often than not) fail to line up with reality, having made them on assumptions of reality that were not empirical supported. The strength of his arguments, or the logical consistency, given an assumption that has not been empirical shown to be true or false is meaningless.
Dawkins failed in addressing the rest of Aquinas.
Dawkins has better things to do than address endless stream of bullshit arguments that come out of the Christian community "proving" that God exists. He didn't fail to address Aquinas, he just decided he had better things to do with his life than coddle intellectual morons.
And he really didn't fail in addressing Aquinas anyway, because given that Aquinas never supplied any empirical evidence in support of his arguments, given his assumption of a first mover, simply dismissing Aquinas out of hand is all he needs to do to refute everything that follows. Assertions without empirical evidence, no matter how logically consistent, are absolutely meaningless.
It is not that Youtuber's responsibility to teach you the rest of Aquinas.
True.
You can search for Aquinas lectures if you want that.
Why would I waste my time with that when I could learn about things based in reality?
The YouTuber states that Dawkins unfairly ignores the subsequent important steps in Aquinas' philosophy
Dismissing bullshit philosophical arguments that have no empirical foundation is not in any way, shape, or form, unfairly ignoring them. Again:
"he really didn't fail in addressing Aquinas anyway, because given that Aquinas never supplied any empirical evidence in support of his arguments, given his assumption of a first mover, simply dismissing Aquinas out of hand is all he needs to do to refute everything that follows. Assertions without empirical evidence, no matter how logically consistent, are absolutely meaningless."
and that YouTuber is completely correct about that.
No, he isn't. He, like you, is just too stupid to understand that an argument made without an empirical foundation is to be dismissed.
The YouTuber's job isn't to convince you that God exists. The YouTuber's job is to communicate that Dawkins' assessment of Aquinas is inadequate.
Atheists are to respond to theists, lazy shithead.
Demanding empirical evidence for non-empirical matters is a display of ignorance. Way to formulate an agnostic position, shitty atheist.
Cosmological arguments rest on empirical premises, like the existence of change. You demand empirical evidence for philosophical conclusions, but not mathematical conclusions.
You don't get that Aquinas isn't discussing astrophysics. He is one of the greatest metaphysicians in history. Expected attacks on metaphysics from you are expected to be childish. Your slander of the genius Aquinas is unsubstantiated bullshit.
Your incessant demands for empirical evidence are childish and display intellectual immaturity.
You do not wish to learn theology, nor differential equations. You want to shitpost and hate that which you have no understanding of.
That Dawkins has better things to do is irrelevant to the fact that he did philosophy very shittily.
Aquinas' prime mover argument rests on the empirical premise that change exists. The YouTuber is correct that Dawkins failed to adequately or seriously address Aquinas. Dawkins should be shamed for his intellectual dishonesty. You have been lied to and duped by Richard Dawkins and his shoddy presentation of one of history's greatest thinkers.
Atheists are to respond to theists, lazy shithead.
Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, retard
Demanding empirical evidence for non-empirical matters is a display of ignorance. Way to formulate an agnostic position, shitty atheist.
Typical Chirstian double-think idiocy, you wish to convince people of God but then claim that it's a "non-empirical" matter. So what is it: does God exist in reality, and therefore can be empirically be shown or does he only exist in your imagination and is a "non-empirical matter"? (hint: it's your imagination).
Not to mention, the claim of a prime mover absolutely falls within the realm of empiricism even if you choose to claim every succeeding argument is "non-empirical"
Cosmological arguments rest on empirical premises, like the existence of change. You demand empirical evidence for philosophical conclusions, but not mathematical conclusions.
Cosmological arguments can be summed up as a circle-jerk of bullshit from those who can't understand the world around them. Anyone can make up a bunch of internally consistent bullshit from a handful of empirical premises, picking and choosing which ones they want as they go along, and ignoring those that contradict their "beautiful" philosophical ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean by the second part because the English is dubious but empirical evidence for mathematical conclusions is absolutely demanded. Mathematical conclusions are constantly tested against the real world for consistency. But maybe I'm just mis-understanding what you're saying because there are about 3 ways I can interpret that statement.
You don't get that Aquinas isn't discussing astrophysics. He is one of the greatest metaphysicians in history. Expected attacks on metaphysics from you are expected to be childish. Your slander of the genius Aquinas is unsubstantiated bullshit.
You don't get that no one here gives a shit about meta-physics because it is objectively bullshit. The claims of every metaphysician have been empirically shown to not line up with reality at some point or another, and Aquinas is no exception. He was an intellectually dis-honest hack who, like most metaphysicians, started with a premises he wanted to prove, and followed whatever line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit he needed to follow to get there.
Your incessant demands for empirical evidence are childish and display intellectual immaturity.
Why? If you make a conclusion based on a claim that is, in reality, false, why is it intellectually immature to demand that you provide empirical evidence to support the conclusion or the claim? Many of Aquinas demands are empirically unsupported at best, and empirically false at worst. Therefore his conclusions are to be dismissed until such time that empirical evidence can be provided showing otherwise.
Typical Christian double-think and retardation: when the evidence supports your argument, cite the evidence. When it doesn't, attack the person demanding evidence. Yeah, I'm the intellectually immature one here.
You do not wish to learn theology, nor differential equations. You want to shitpost and hate that which you have no understanding of.
Atheist. Why the fuck would I waste my time learning theology? And I'm a mathematician by profession, unless you're talking about some obscure philosophical co-opting of the term (in which case, you're right, I have no interest in learning).
That Dawkins has better things to do is irrelevant to the fact that he did philosophy very shittily.
He dismissed an argument with no foundation, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he was wrong.
Aquinas' prime mover argument rests on the empirical premise that change exists.
In what sense? Change is an ill-defined abstract construct that needs to be better specified (certainly more specified than a theologian with no science education to speak of) in order to make any sort of argument based on it. Change as in time? Space? Being? Understanding? Are we coming from a philosophical stand-point or a empirical scientific one? There is no precise definition of "change" in the sense that Aquinas used it, which in itself lends everything he said to being dismissed out of hand.
But let's even entertain the concept for a second and give him the benefit of the doubt: in every non-philosophical sense of the word (i.e., change in time, space, or state) there is no empirical foundation to say that "change" exists. The operation of the universe, to the best of our scientific knowledge, suggests that the universe may, in fact, be static and that "change" is simply a result of our perception than an actual element of the universe. This could, of course, be incorrect, but the point stands that we don't have any solid empirical evidence either way.
In short, unless Aquinas was some genius physicist (he wasn't) there is no empirical basis to make his argument upon.
The YouTuber is correct that Dawkins failed to adequately or seriously address Aquinas
No, he isn't.
Dawkins should be shamed for his intellectual dishonesty.
He wasn't being dishonest.
You have been lied to and duped by Richard Dawkins and his shoddy presentation of one of history's greatest thinkers.
Don't read Dawkins, don't follow him, don't care. He's got a decent sense of humor but beyond that he just annoys me. And Aquinas was an idiot.
Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, retard
Aquinas met his burden, shithead. Dawkins failed to respond adequately.
Typical Chirstian double-think idiocy,
Aristoteleans, Jews, Muslims, any classical monotheists....
you wish to convince people of God but then claim that it's a "non-empirical" matter. So what is it: does God exist in reality, and therefore can be empirically be shown
Exists in reality does not entail can be empirically shown. Case in point, the existence of an infinitude of prime numbers in reality.
or does he only exist in your imagination and is a "non-empirical matter"? (hint: it's your imagination).
Ontological arguments are a priori and conclude God exists in more than the imagination.
Not to mention, the claim of a prime mover absolutely falls within the realm of empiricism even if you choose to claim every succeeding argument is "non-empirical"
Cosmological arguments are a posteriori. They have empirical premises, like the existence of change, and certain metaphysical non-empirical conclusions, like the existence of the prime mover.
You don't get that no one here gives a shit about meta-physics because it is objectively bullshit. The claims of every metaphysician have been empirically shown to not line up with reality at some point or another, and Aquinas is no exception. He was an intellectually dis-honest hack who, like most metaphysicians, started with a premises he wanted to prove, and followed whatever line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit he needed to follow to get there.
Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis. Questioning Aquinas' motivations is ad hominem. There are strong arguments.
You don't get that no one here gives a shit about atheism because it is objectively bullshit. The claims of every scientist have been empirically shown to not line up with reality at some point or another, and Dawkins is no exception. He is an intellectually dis-honest hack who, like most atheists, started with a premises he wanted to prove, and followed whatever line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit he needed to follow to get there.
Nice style, bro.
Why? If you make a conclusion based on a claim that is, in reality, false, why is it intellectually immature to demand that you provide empirical evidence to support the conclusion or the claim?
Allegedly there are other types of claims than empirical claims, that still somehow correspond to reality. For example: mathematical, historical, and moral claims. Also, your claim that truth has to do with correspondence to reality is a philosophical claim. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
He dismissed an argument with no foundation, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he was wrong.
If Dawkins is right, he is right by chance. Nothing in his writing demonstrates his competence in assessing Aquinas.
In what sense? Change is an ill-defined abstract construct that needs to be better specified (certainly more specified than a theologian with no science education to speak of) in order to make any sort of argument based on it. Change as in time? Space? Being? Understanding? Are we coming from a philosophical stand-point or a empirical scientific one? There is no precise definition of "change" in the sense that Aquinas used it, which in itself lends everything he said to being dismissed out of hand.
You make lots of claims here about what philosophers didn't do and can't do, but have no knowledge of what they did or attempted to do.
that "change" is simply a result of our perception than an actual element of the universe.
aka change exists, (if only in our perception.)
In short, unless Aquinas was some genius physicist (he wasn't)
He was a genius metaphysician. You have not demonstrated metaphysics to be an illegitimate field of study. Metaphysics is a legitimate field of study. Your post is rife with metaphysical claims, for example regarding the possible staticity of the universe.
The YouTuber is correct that Dawkins unfairly and inadequately treated Aquinas. Dawkins is either very ignorant about the strength of Aquinas' philosophy, or he is intentionally dishonest.
Don't read Dawkins, don't follow him, don't care. He's got a decent sense of humor but beyond that he just annoys me. And Aquinas was an idiot.
Fantastic. This thread is about Dawkins inadequately addressing Aquinas. You, knowing neither apparently, weighed in saying that Dawkins was intellectually honest. If a theist presents Aquinas to you as proof of God, meeting his initial burden, then you as an atheist ought reply adequately. You thus far have not. If you do not like Dawkins as your intellectual representative, then you should find another scholar to place your trust in regarding Aquinas. As of now, you have not demonstrated competent understanding of Aquinas enough to properly evaluate whether treatment of him was fair or not. Though you believe in no gods, something possible for an agnostic to also do without identifying as atheist, you are more of an apatheist. You do not care about the topic enough to develop an opinion worthy of respect. You have simply decided that you do not believe, with insufficient examination. A good atheist would fairly and competently respond to Aquinas, something neither you nor Dawkins has done. I don't doubt there are scholars who have fairly opposed Aquinas. I doubt that you know of them.
Edit: Conceded, Aquinas did meet his burden of proof. But this is irrelevant. I mis-read this statement.
Aristoteleans, Jews, Muslims, any classical monotheists....
What's your point? All your monotheistic religions and associated theological constructs are retarded. Just because the Muslims and Jews are retarded, it doesn't make Christians any less retarded.
Exists in reality does not entail can be empirically shown. Case in point, the existence of an infinitude of prime numbers in reality.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, YOU FUCKING MORON. Your lack of understanding of the BASIC principles of mathematical thought and attempt to use them in this case has EXPLICITLY proved my point. The prime numbers DO NOT FUCKING EXIST IN REALITY. THE ARE AN ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND. A PROOF THAT THERE ARE INFINITE PRIME NUMBERS ONLY ASSERTS THAT THEY EXIST WITHIN THE ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT OF YOUR MIND, NOT THAT INFINITE PRIME NUMBERS EXIST ANYWHERE IN REALITY. NO MATHEMATICIAN HAS EVER MADE THIS CLAIM AND NEVER, NEVER NEVER WILL.
And more to the point, mathematics is a natural sciencebased on empiricism used to describe reality, not define it. Whenever a branch mathematics has been shown to inaccurately describe reality THAT BRANCH OF MATHEMATICS HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR CHANGED TO PROPERLY DESCRIBE REALITY. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND (which is the bullshit you're trying to do).
By your own assertion, God exists only in your mind.
Ontological arguments are a priori and conclude God exists in more than the imagination.
Ontological arguments are bullshit that can be spun in anyway your want to show anything you want. The only valid Ontological construct is mathematics, which, again, is used to describe reality, has an empirical basis, and is changed when it fails to meet it's empirical requirements.
Didn't Aquinas himself say that Ontological arguments were bullshit anyway? So why are you bringing them up in support of his assertion?
Cosmological arguments are a posteriori. They have empirical premises, like the existence of change, and certain metaphysical non-empirical conclusions, like the existence of the prime mover.
Cosmological arguments have no empirical premises because none of their premises has been shown to be empirically true. Find me an empirical evidence that change exists within our universe that isn't widely questioned by the scientific community and I will concede to you this entire argument.
Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis.
What's your point? Whether they came up with the idea first doesn't make it any more or less empirically true. Besides, Physicalism, like most metaphysical constructs and most philosophy in general, only has credence based on the clumsy nature of human thought and language. No metaphysician even understands what physical nature is to begin with, yet they attempt to draw conclusions from an assumption based on that.
Questioning Aquinas' motivations is ad hominem.
gasp, oh no!
Allegedly there are other types of claims than empirical claims, that still somehow correspond to reality. For example: mathematical, historical, and moral claims. Also, your claim that truth has to do with correspondence to reality is a philosophical claim. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
Which doesn't address my point for one, and doesn't make a difference for two. Again, mathematics only corresponds to reality because it was constructed to fit reality. When mathematics fails to accurately describe reality, it is changed to do so.
Historical (modern historical) claims are made on the basis of empirical evidence. Claims that do not fit the empirical standard are dismissed by the community. Moral claims are an entirely different subject.
Empiricism is a philosophical construct to, what's your point? A tiny fraction of philosophy is useful, and the vast majority is circle-jerking bullshit.
You make lots of claims here about what philosophers didn't do and can't do, but have no knowledge of what they did or attempted to do.
Because what they did or attempted to do with regards to the subject is irrelevant. Anyone can circle-jerk all day long on the nature of the universe using faulty assumptions and bad definitions that fail to line up with empirical reality. My point is that without empirical evidence that X abstract idea actually exists in reality you can never say that Y conclusion is also true in reality. You can only say that given the assumption that X exists in reality Y would then exist in reality, which does not mean that either exist in reality.
aka change exists, (if only in our perception.)
Which seems to be the theme of this debate. You are concerned with perception, I am concerned with reality. I am happy to concede to you that both change and God exist in your perception but there is no evidence that either exist in reality, and your perception is an inadequate basis on which to make a claim towards the existence of either in reality.
He was a genius metaphysician. You have not demonstrated metaphysics to be an illegitimate field of study. Metaphysics is a legitimate field of study. Your post is rife with metaphysical claims, for example regarding the possible staticity of the universe.
He was an idiot. I haven't demonstrated Thetans to be illegitimate either, but that doesn't make them anymore legitimate. And you're call the possibility of a static nature of the universe, based on empirical discovery, based on empiricism, which is considered to be the virtual antithesis of metaphysics, to be a metaphysical claim? The double-think is strong here.
Fantastic. This thread is about Dawkins inadequately addressing Aquinas. You, knowing neither apparently, weighed in saying that Dawkins was intellectually honest.
Moving the goalpost. The thread is about a specific claim, knowing anything about Dawkins or Aquinas is irrelevant. Knowing the nature of both their arguments is. Dawkins argument was presented in full and I am familiar with Aquinas' argument.
If a theist presents Aquinas to you as proof of God, meeting his initial burden, then you as an atheist ought reply adequately. You thus far have not.
No, he must meet my burden, not his own. My burden in all matters of proof is much higher than that of Aquinas. My burden is based on empiricism. He does not meet my burden and thus, can be dismissed off-hand.
If you do not like Dawkins as your intellectual representative, then you should find another scholar to place your trust in regarding Aquinas
I represent myself.
As of now, you have not demonstrated competent understanding of Aquinas enough to properly evaluate whether treatment of him was fair or not.
I know enough about his initial arguments and metaphysics to properly evaluate him. Once again, if your house is built on a foundation of quicksand I need know nothing about the construction of your walls to assert that I know it will collapse. I do not need to know the intimate details of Aquinas' arguments, only the initial arguments and the basis on which they stand to know they are bullshit.
Though you believe in no gods, something possible for an agnostic to also do without identifying as atheist, you are more of an apatheist.
TIL
You do not care about the topic enough to develop an opinion worthy of respect. You have simply decided that you do not believe, with insufficient examination.
I was raised Catholic but identified as atheist very young. My modern indifference to the topic comes from an thorough understanding of it's poor arguments and lack of solid foundation. I have no insufficiently examined the subject, I have sufficiently examined it to the point that I understand it is not worthy of any sort of credibility.
A good atheist would fairly and competently respond to Aquinas, something neither you nor Dawkins has done.
Fairly responding to Aquinas is dismissing him.
I don't doubt there are scholars who have fairly opposed Aquinas. I doubt that you know of them.
Psuedo-intellectual bullshit doesn't require fair treatment. It demand to be dismissed.
You have no understanding of the Platonism vs. Nominalism debate
You have no understanding of the relationship between math and physics, and you mistake the former for the latter.
You are a presumptive ass in assuming I'm Christian.
I brought up ontological arguments since you brought up "only exists in imagination."
All that is needed for the argument is the existence of change, even if change only exists in perception.
You have no understanding of ontological arguments.
Your perception of philosophy as circlejerk bullshit demonstrates your immaturity.
Aquinas was a genius. You're an idiot.
You are NOT familiar with Aquinas' argument. You have heard of it and know surface details, but you lack real understanding of it.
Though Aquinas didn't consider ontological arguments to be the strongest, he didn't call them bullshit. Take the hint here. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean that it is bullshit written by a moron.
The conclusion of an unmoved mover, from empirical premises, is as secure as the conclusion of the existence of atoms, from scientific experiment.
You should get someone smarter to represent you.
I don't care about your life story.
Dismissing the opposition out of hand is an idiotic cowardly bitch move.
Aquinas is of history's greatest intellectuals. Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual who deserves to be dismissed.
You have no understanding of the Platonism vs. Nominalism debate
Platonism is bullshit, pure and simple. The tiny number of Platonists(?) that exist can't even agree on the basic foundations of the philosophy.
You have no understanding of the relationship between math and physics, and you mistake the former for the latter.
MATHEMATICIAN. What do you do for a living again?
You are a presumptive ass in assuming I'm Christian.
I've seen your post history, I know you're a Christian. Or at least a culturally Christian deist of some kind.
I brought up ontological arguments since you brought up "only exists in imagination."
Which doesn't help your case. They're bullshit. You can't use the basis of "something exists in my mind" to conclude that "something exists in reality". In modern terms we call that "insanity".
All that is needed for the argument is the existence of change, even if change only exists in perception.
No it isn't. Perception does not equal reality. Just because you perceive time to be slowing when faced with a crisis situation does not mean that time actually slows. Just because you perceive change does not mean it exists.
Your perception of philosophy as circlejerk bullshit demonstrates your immaturity.
Most modern scientists and scientific philosophers agree with me.
Aquinas was a genius.
Keep saying it. Maybe if you really, really, really commit to this perception it will come true!
You are NOT familiar with Aquinas' argument. You have heard of it and know surface details, but you lack real understanding of it.
How many times do I have to keep saying this? I don't need any deeper understanding than the surface arguments because the basis of his arguments are bullshit.
Though Aquinas didn't consider ontological arguments to be the strongest, he didn't call them bullshit.
Conceded. Trolling hyperbole. Though, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he specifically said that ontological arguments could not be used in proving the existence of God so my original point still stands.
Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean that it is bullshit written by a moron.
You can't build a bridge with cosmological arguments. Empiricism has won out because it is the only field of philosophy shown to consistently come to accurate conclusions about the world around us.
The conclusion of an unmoved mover, from empirical premises, is as secure as the conclusion of the existence of atoms, from scientific experiment.
Say this with me now:
There is no empirical premise
There is no empirical premise
There is no empirical premise
If you think otherwise, cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you, admit that Aquinas is right, accept God, and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site.
You keep saying empirical on one hand and then say that perception is all you need to show change exists. I don't think you understand what empirical means.
I don't care about your life story.
You were the one who brought it up.
Dismissing the opposition out of hand is an idiotic cowardly bitch move
And then you say:
Aquinas is of history's greatest intellectuals. Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual who deserves to be dismissed.
You do not have the credentials to make this claim. It is one for philosophers, not mathematicians. Most mathematicians are Platonists. Godel was a Platonist. I doubt your understanding of the relationship between mathematics and reality is sufficiently more advanced than Godel's.
The tiny number of Platonists(?) that exist can't even agree on the basic foundations of the philosophy.
Kindly please tell me the number of contemporary philosophers who are Platonists today.
Like nominalists are in complete philosophical agreement. :/
MATHEMATICIAN
This is irrelevant. You have still demonstrated a childish view. Empiricism does not establish the infinitude of primes. You could be a genius physicist, statistician, or cryptologist, and that wouldn't mean you have a respectable opinion about the philosophical foundations of mathematics. For example, unless it is your specific field of study, I would not trust you to weigh in on axioms of set theory or the continuum hypothesis, even if you are a genius mathematician. Finally, and get this through your head, the truth of something like the parallel postulate is not observed by rolling balls and gliding paper airplanes and observing their physical behavior. It is a mistake to confuse math and physics in this manner.
I've seen your post history, I know you're a Christian. Or at least a culturally Christian deist of some kind.
You don't know shit. My post history has defended classical theism, which is not deism, and is independent of Christianity. Furthermore, I never indicated that my post history professes my actual beliefs. Lastly, to speculate about my motivations as a believer is ad hominem.
Which doesn't help your case. They're bullshit. You can't use the basis of "something exists in my mind" to conclude that "something exists in reality". In modern terms we call that "insanity".
Look shithead, even though in your everyday life you accept the existence of change, you want to be hard headed during this debate. Got it bro, fucking change doesn't exist. Atheists so smart super rational numba 1. So of course I can't change your mind, change doesn't exist. We won't change presidents. Change is a schizophrenic hallucination. The concept of the arrow of time never has had and never will have any clout in physics. Change doesn't exist. So simple everyone should have seen it before. I'll do you one better: the fucking universe doesn't exist bro. Nothing does!
Most modern scientists and scientific philosophers agree with me.
You are as wrong about this as you are wrong about the percentage of Platonists among contemporary philosophers.
Keep saying it. Maybe if you really, really, really commit to this perception it will come true!
Aquinas was a genius. You know nothing of his extensive careful work. Your criticism is like, "lol Euclid was dumb because he's old and didn't even science."
How many times do I have to keep saying this? I don't need any deeper understanding than the surface arguments because the basis of his arguments are bullshit.
To dismiss out of hand that which you do not understand is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
Conceded. Trolling hyperbole. Though, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he specifically said that ontological arguments could not be used in proving the existence of God so my original point still stands.
You are not wrong. But also know that Aquinas' motivations were not to prove the existence of God to skeptical nonbelievers. His goal was to help religious holy men who already believed in God understand God better. For you to take a mathematician's rigor to attack him is a bit historically uncharitable. Nevertheless, modern Thomists would say come at me bro with everything you've got. Just like mathematicians have known how to count and add for a while, it wasn't until relatively recently in the history of math that mathematicians defined those concepts set theoretically. Just as there has been technical progress on counting and adding, concepts that the lay think have not been added to since antiquity, there has been technical progress in metaphysics, though the lay needn't know about it. You are happy to dismiss Aquinas as old and false, rather than attempting to charitably read him and reformulate his ideas in a contemporarily acceptable way. Rather than read to try to find any hints of truth anywhere, you are eager to find the possibility of the smallest falsehood, (like the reality of the existence of change), to dismiss all of the work of one of history's greatest thinkers. You are not exhibiting a mathematician's careful mind by throwing out the baby with the bath water like this. Even Andrew Wiles' proof had mistakes that needed to be corrected. Only a shitty mathematician would refuse to try to find the truth from Wiles' work, because he heard from the grapevine that the proof contained errors.
You can't build a bridge with cosmological arguments. Empiricism has won out because it is the only field of philosophy shown to consistently come to accurate conclusions about the world around us.
And you can't approximate Graham's number with a suspension bridge. So please please please tell me that mathematicians' work on Graham's number does not come to accurate conclusions about reality.
Say this with me now: There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise There is no empirical premise If you think otherwise, cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you, admit that Aquinas is right, accept God, and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site.
You keep saying empirical on one hand and then say that perception is all you need to show change exists. I don't think you understand what empirical means.
Please please please tell me what empirical means. I'll tell you right now that I'm setting a trap. Your stupid ass doesn't know how to go from senses to the existence of an external world. So please tell me what the fuck empiricism is, master philosopher.
No, he must meet my burden, not his own. My burden in all matters of proof is much higher than that of Aquinas. My burden is based on empiricism. He does not meet my burden and thus, can be dismissed off-hand.
gtfo. "He must meet my burden." A dumb atheist fucking up understanding burden of proof: shocking. :/
You childish atheists think "burden of proof" is a magical phrase that you can repeat to protect your worldview. Put your fingers in your ears, refuse to read anything because you know it's bullshit ahead of time, and shout, "lalala you didn't prove anything, burden of proof burden of proof, you can't prove anything if I keep my eyes shut lalala. I don't need to read anything lalala it's your job to convince me, and I'll never listen to what you have to say."
CAN YOU GET ANY FUCKING STUPIDER??!!!
I did not dismiss Dawkins out of hand. I have studied Dawkins and Aquinas. I have studied them fairly, and in-depth, before dismissing Dawkins. You have admitted to reading neither. You still think you have a worthy opinion, though. You have at best a superficial understanding of the matters, and then defend ignorance because you think you know enough to dismiss it as bullshit. You do not know enough. Your premature dismissal is foolish. How stupid can you be that you do not understand the difference between dismissing something out of hand and dismissing something after fair and careful examination?
view the rest of the comments →
tropicflite ago
Dude agrees that Dawkins made a correct point (that even if it's granted that there was a first cause there's no reason to say it was god). Dude says Dawkins disregards Aquinas's supporting arguments but then doesn't even say what they are.
Antiracist10 ago
I debated replying to you and @The_Only_Other, because I am under the impression that your minds are not open to learning. I decided to reply that others might see.
If Dawkins wants to challenge the first cause argument, then he can say there are no or many first causes. To say the proof is true, that there is one first cause, but to say this is not God, is lazy. Aquinas spent many pages explaining how, after you conclude the first cause, you can also conclude power and intelligence from it. Aquinas met his responsibility. Dawkins failed in addressing the rest of Aquinas. It is not that Youtuber's responsibility to teach you the rest of Aquinas. You can search for Aquinas lectures if you want that. The YouTuber states that Dawkins unfairly ignores the subsequent important steps in Aquinas' philosophy, and that YouTuber is completely correct about that. The YouTuber's job isn't to convince you that God exists. The YouTuber's job is to communicate that Dawkins' assessment of Aquinas is inadequate. That YouTuber is correct.
The_Only_Other ago
No one cares. We're sick of de-bunking the circle-jerking half-assed "Look God really does exist!!1!!1!" bullshit that comes out of the Christian community only to have more circle-jerking Christians come up with thousands more, even more half-assed arguments and expecting us to go through them with a fined tooth-comb. Don't have time for it, don't care.
Can't prove it empirically, arguing in either direction is just a show of ignorance.
Not relevant, if I can't show the proof is true or false any conclusion coming from the assumption can be dismissed off-hand.
Pointing out that a foundation built on quicksand will not support your house, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and lazily making an argument (even an incorrect or uniformed one) that even if the foundation built in quicksand will support your house, your walls won't bear the load of your roof, makes no difference to whether the house will stand.
Aquinas made a bunch of unsubstantiated, bullshit arguments that are based on a foundation that has no empirical support to begin with. Astrophysicists make arguments supported with sound, rigorous mathematics all the time only to have them (more often than not) fail to line up with reality, having made them on assumptions of reality that were not empirical supported. The strength of his arguments, or the logical consistency, given an assumption that has not been empirical shown to be true or false is meaningless.
Dawkins has better things to do than address endless stream of bullshit arguments that come out of the Christian community "proving" that God exists. He didn't fail to address Aquinas, he just decided he had better things to do with his life than coddle intellectual morons.
And he really didn't fail in addressing Aquinas anyway, because given that Aquinas never supplied any empirical evidence in support of his arguments, given his assumption of a first mover, simply dismissing Aquinas out of hand is all he needs to do to refute everything that follows. Assertions without empirical evidence, no matter how logically consistent, are absolutely meaningless.
True.
Why would I waste my time with that when I could learn about things based in reality?
Dismissing bullshit philosophical arguments that have no empirical foundation is not in any way, shape, or form, unfairly ignoring them. Again:
"he really didn't fail in addressing Aquinas anyway, because given that Aquinas never supplied any empirical evidence in support of his arguments, given his assumption of a first mover, simply dismissing Aquinas out of hand is all he needs to do to refute everything that follows. Assertions without empirical evidence, no matter how logically consistent, are absolutely meaningless."
No, he isn't. He, like you, is just too stupid to understand that an argument made without an empirical foundation is to be dismissed.
True
No, he isn't.
Antiracist10 ago
Atheists are to respond to theists, lazy shithead.
Demanding empirical evidence for non-empirical matters is a display of ignorance. Way to formulate an agnostic position, shitty atheist.
Cosmological arguments rest on empirical premises, like the existence of change. You demand empirical evidence for philosophical conclusions, but not mathematical conclusions.
You don't get that Aquinas isn't discussing astrophysics. He is one of the greatest metaphysicians in history. Expected attacks on metaphysics from you are expected to be childish. Your slander of the genius Aquinas is unsubstantiated bullshit.
Your incessant demands for empirical evidence are childish and display intellectual immaturity.
You do not wish to learn theology, nor differential equations. You want to shitpost and hate that which you have no understanding of.
That Dawkins has better things to do is irrelevant to the fact that he did philosophy very shittily.
Aquinas' prime mover argument rests on the empirical premise that change exists. The YouTuber is correct that Dawkins failed to adequately or seriously address Aquinas. Dawkins should be shamed for his intellectual dishonesty. You have been lied to and duped by Richard Dawkins and his shoddy presentation of one of history's greatest thinkers.
The_Only_Other ago
Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, retard
Typical Chirstian double-think idiocy, you wish to convince people of God but then claim that it's a "non-empirical" matter. So what is it: does God exist in reality, and therefore can be empirically be shown or does he only exist in your imagination and is a "non-empirical matter"? (hint: it's your imagination).
Not to mention, the claim of a prime mover absolutely falls within the realm of empiricism even if you choose to claim every succeeding argument is "non-empirical"
Cosmological arguments can be summed up as a circle-jerk of bullshit from those who can't understand the world around them. Anyone can make up a bunch of internally consistent bullshit from a handful of empirical premises, picking and choosing which ones they want as they go along, and ignoring those that contradict their "beautiful" philosophical ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean by the second part because the English is dubious but empirical evidence for mathematical conclusions is absolutely demanded. Mathematical conclusions are constantly tested against the real world for consistency. But maybe I'm just mis-understanding what you're saying because there are about 3 ways I can interpret that statement.
You don't get that no one here gives a shit about meta-physics because it is objectively bullshit. The claims of every metaphysician have been empirically shown to not line up with reality at some point or another, and Aquinas is no exception. He was an intellectually dis-honest hack who, like most metaphysicians, started with a premises he wanted to prove, and followed whatever line of pseudo-intellectual bullshit he needed to follow to get there.
Why? If you make a conclusion based on a claim that is, in reality, false, why is it intellectually immature to demand that you provide empirical evidence to support the conclusion or the claim? Many of Aquinas demands are empirically unsupported at best, and empirically false at worst. Therefore his conclusions are to be dismissed until such time that empirical evidence can be provided showing otherwise.
Typical Christian double-think and retardation: when the evidence supports your argument, cite the evidence. When it doesn't, attack the person demanding evidence. Yeah, I'm the intellectually immature one here.
Atheist. Why the fuck would I waste my time learning theology? And I'm a mathematician by profession, unless you're talking about some obscure philosophical co-opting of the term (in which case, you're right, I have no interest in learning).
He dismissed an argument with no foundation, just because you don't like it doesn't mean he was wrong.
In what sense? Change is an ill-defined abstract construct that needs to be better specified (certainly more specified than a theologian with no science education to speak of) in order to make any sort of argument based on it. Change as in time? Space? Being? Understanding? Are we coming from a philosophical stand-point or a empirical scientific one? There is no precise definition of "change" in the sense that Aquinas used it, which in itself lends everything he said to being dismissed out of hand.
But let's even entertain the concept for a second and give him the benefit of the doubt: in every non-philosophical sense of the word (i.e., change in time, space, or state) there is no empirical foundation to say that "change" exists. The operation of the universe, to the best of our scientific knowledge, suggests that the universe may, in fact, be static and that "change" is simply a result of our perception than an actual element of the universe. This could, of course, be incorrect, but the point stands that we don't have any solid empirical evidence either way.
In short, unless Aquinas was some genius physicist (he wasn't) there is no empirical basis to make his argument upon.
No, he isn't.
He wasn't being dishonest.
Don't read Dawkins, don't follow him, don't care. He's got a decent sense of humor but beyond that he just annoys me. And Aquinas was an idiot.
antiracist ago
Aquinas met his burden, shithead. Dawkins failed to respond adequately.
Aristoteleans, Jews, Muslims, any classical monotheists....
Exists in reality does not entail can be empirically shown. Case in point, the existence of an infinitude of prime numbers in reality.
Ontological arguments are a priori and conclude God exists in more than the imagination.
Cosmological arguments are a posteriori. They have empirical premises, like the existence of change, and certain metaphysical non-empirical conclusions, like the existence of the prime mover.
Physicalism is a metaphysical thesis. Questioning Aquinas' motivations is ad hominem. There are strong arguments.
Nice style, bro.
Allegedly there are other types of claims than empirical claims, that still somehow correspond to reality. For example: mathematical, historical, and moral claims. Also, your claim that truth has to do with correspondence to reality is a philosophical claim. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth
If Dawkins is right, he is right by chance. Nothing in his writing demonstrates his competence in assessing Aquinas.
You make lots of claims here about what philosophers didn't do and can't do, but have no knowledge of what they did or attempted to do.
aka change exists, (if only in our perception.)
He was a genius metaphysician. You have not demonstrated metaphysics to be an illegitimate field of study. Metaphysics is a legitimate field of study. Your post is rife with metaphysical claims, for example regarding the possible staticity of the universe.
The YouTuber is correct that Dawkins unfairly and inadequately treated Aquinas. Dawkins is either very ignorant about the strength of Aquinas' philosophy, or he is intentionally dishonest.
Fantastic. This thread is about Dawkins inadequately addressing Aquinas. You, knowing neither apparently, weighed in saying that Dawkins was intellectually honest. If a theist presents Aquinas to you as proof of God, meeting his initial burden, then you as an atheist ought reply adequately. You thus far have not. If you do not like Dawkins as your intellectual representative, then you should find another scholar to place your trust in regarding Aquinas. As of now, you have not demonstrated competent understanding of Aquinas enough to properly evaluate whether treatment of him was fair or not. Though you believe in no gods, something possible for an agnostic to also do without identifying as atheist, you are more of an apatheist. You do not care about the topic enough to develop an opinion worthy of respect. You have simply decided that you do not believe, with insufficient examination. A good atheist would fairly and competently respond to Aquinas, something neither you nor Dawkins has done. I don't doubt there are scholars who have fairly opposed Aquinas. I doubt that you know of them.
The_Only_Other ago
No, he didn't. That's the point.
Edit: Conceded, Aquinas did meet his burden of proof. But this is irrelevant. I mis-read this statement.
What's your point? All your monotheistic religions and associated theological constructs are retarded. Just because the Muslims and Jews are retarded, it doesn't make Christians any less retarded.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, YOU FUCKING MORON. Your lack of understanding of the BASIC principles of mathematical thought and attempt to use them in this case has EXPLICITLY proved my point. The prime numbers DO NOT FUCKING EXIST IN REALITY. THE ARE AN ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT THAT EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND. A PROOF THAT THERE ARE INFINITE PRIME NUMBERS ONLY ASSERTS THAT THEY EXIST WITHIN THE ABSTRACT CONSTRUCT OF YOUR MIND, NOT THAT INFINITE PRIME NUMBERS EXIST ANYWHERE IN REALITY. NO MATHEMATICIAN HAS EVER MADE THIS CLAIM AND NEVER, NEVER NEVER WILL.
And more to the point, mathematics is a natural science based on empiricism used to describe reality, not define it. Whenever a branch mathematics has been shown to inaccurately describe reality THAT BRANCH OF MATHEMATICS HAS BEEN DISMISSED OR CHANGED TO PROPERLY DESCRIBE REALITY. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND (which is the bullshit you're trying to do).
By your own assertion, God exists only in your mind.
Ontological arguments are bullshit that can be spun in anyway your want to show anything you want. The only valid Ontological construct is mathematics, which, again, is used to describe reality, has an empirical basis, and is changed when it fails to meet it's empirical requirements.
Didn't Aquinas himself say that Ontological arguments were bullshit anyway? So why are you bringing them up in support of his assertion?
Cosmological arguments have no empirical premises because none of their premises has been shown to be empirically true. Find me an empirical evidence that change exists within our universe that isn't widely questioned by the scientific community and I will concede to you this entire argument.
What's your point? Whether they came up with the idea first doesn't make it any more or less empirically true. Besides, Physicalism, like most metaphysical constructs and most philosophy in general, only has credence based on the clumsy nature of human thought and language. No metaphysician even understands what physical nature is to begin with, yet they attempt to draw conclusions from an assumption based on that.
gasp, oh no!
Which doesn't address my point for one, and doesn't make a difference for two. Again, mathematics only corresponds to reality because it was constructed to fit reality. When mathematics fails to accurately describe reality, it is changed to do so.
Historical (modern historical) claims are made on the basis of empirical evidence. Claims that do not fit the empirical standard are dismissed by the community. Moral claims are an entirely different subject.
Empiricism is a philosophical construct to, what's your point? A tiny fraction of philosophy is useful, and the vast majority is circle-jerking bullshit.
Because what they did or attempted to do with regards to the subject is irrelevant. Anyone can circle-jerk all day long on the nature of the universe using faulty assumptions and bad definitions that fail to line up with empirical reality. My point is that without empirical evidence that X abstract idea actually exists in reality you can never say that Y conclusion is also true in reality. You can only say that given the assumption that X exists in reality Y would then exist in reality, which does not mean that either exist in reality.
Which seems to be the theme of this debate. You are concerned with perception, I am concerned with reality. I am happy to concede to you that both change and God exist in your perception but there is no evidence that either exist in reality, and your perception is an inadequate basis on which to make a claim towards the existence of either in reality.
He was an idiot. I haven't demonstrated Thetans to be illegitimate either, but that doesn't make them anymore legitimate. And you're call the possibility of a static nature of the universe, based on empirical discovery, based on empiricism, which is considered to be the virtual antithesis of metaphysics, to be a metaphysical claim? The double-think is strong here.
Moving the goalpost. The thread is about a specific claim, knowing anything about Dawkins or Aquinas is irrelevant. Knowing the nature of both their arguments is. Dawkins argument was presented in full and I am familiar with Aquinas' argument.
No, he must meet my burden, not his own. My burden in all matters of proof is much higher than that of Aquinas. My burden is based on empiricism. He does not meet my burden and thus, can be dismissed off-hand.
I represent myself.
I know enough about his initial arguments and metaphysics to properly evaluate him. Once again, if your house is built on a foundation of quicksand I need know nothing about the construction of your walls to assert that I know it will collapse. I do not need to know the intimate details of Aquinas' arguments, only the initial arguments and the basis on which they stand to know they are bullshit.
TIL
I was raised Catholic but identified as atheist very young. My modern indifference to the topic comes from an thorough understanding of it's poor arguments and lack of solid foundation. I have no insufficiently examined the subject, I have sufficiently examined it to the point that I understand it is not worthy of any sort of credibility.
Fairly responding to Aquinas is dismissing him.
Psuedo-intellectual bullshit doesn't require fair treatment. It demand to be dismissed.
antiracist ago
You have no understanding of the Platonism vs. Nominalism debate
You have no understanding of the relationship between math and physics, and you mistake the former for the latter.
You are a presumptive ass in assuming I'm Christian.
I brought up ontological arguments since you brought up "only exists in imagination."
All that is needed for the argument is the existence of change, even if change only exists in perception.
You have no understanding of ontological arguments.
Your perception of philosophy as circlejerk bullshit demonstrates your immaturity.
Aquinas was a genius. You're an idiot.
You are NOT familiar with Aquinas' argument. You have heard of it and know surface details, but you lack real understanding of it.
Though Aquinas didn't consider ontological arguments to be the strongest, he didn't call them bullshit. Take the hint here. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't mean that it is bullshit written by a moron.
The conclusion of an unmoved mover, from empirical premises, is as secure as the conclusion of the existence of atoms, from scientific experiment.
You should get someone smarter to represent you.
I don't care about your life story.
Dismissing the opposition out of hand is an idiotic cowardly bitch move.
Aquinas is of history's greatest intellectuals. Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual who deserves to be dismissed.
The_Only_Other ago
Platonism is bullshit, pure and simple. The tiny number of Platonists(?) that exist can't even agree on the basic foundations of the philosophy.
MATHEMATICIAN. What do you do for a living again?
I've seen your post history, I know you're a Christian. Or at least a culturally Christian deist of some kind.
Which doesn't help your case. They're bullshit. You can't use the basis of "something exists in my mind" to conclude that "something exists in reality". In modern terms we call that "insanity".
No it isn't. Perception does not equal reality. Just because you perceive time to be slowing when faced with a crisis situation does not mean that time actually slows. Just because you perceive change does not mean it exists.
Most modern scientists and scientific philosophers agree with me.
Keep saying it. Maybe if you really, really, really commit to this perception it will come true!
How many times do I have to keep saying this? I don't need any deeper understanding than the surface arguments because the basis of his arguments are bullshit.
Conceded. Trolling hyperbole. Though, I do believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that he specifically said that ontological arguments could not be used in proving the existence of God so my original point still stands.
You can't build a bridge with cosmological arguments. Empiricism has won out because it is the only field of philosophy shown to consistently come to accurate conclusions about the world around us.
Say this with me now:
There is no empirical premise
There is no empirical premise
There is no empirical premise
If you think otherwise, cite me an empirical source showing that change exists in our universe and I will concede this entire argument to you, admit that Aquinas is right, accept God, and write a long winded essay admitting that I was wrong that you can plaster anywhere you want over this site.
You keep saying empirical on one hand and then say that perception is all you need to show change exists. I don't think you understand what empirical means.
You were the one who brought it up.
And then you say:
CAN YOU GET ANY FUCKING STUPIDER??!!!
antiracist ago
You do not have the credentials to make this claim. It is one for philosophers, not mathematicians. Most mathematicians are Platonists. Godel was a Platonist. I doubt your understanding of the relationship between mathematics and reality is sufficiently more advanced than Godel's.
Kindly please tell me the number of contemporary philosophers who are Platonists today.
http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl
Control F Platonism.
Like nominalists are in complete philosophical agreement. :/
This is irrelevant. You have still demonstrated a childish view. Empiricism does not establish the infinitude of primes. You could be a genius physicist, statistician, or cryptologist, and that wouldn't mean you have a respectable opinion about the philosophical foundations of mathematics. For example, unless it is your specific field of study, I would not trust you to weigh in on axioms of set theory or the continuum hypothesis, even if you are a genius mathematician. Finally, and get this through your head, the truth of something like the parallel postulate is not observed by rolling balls and gliding paper airplanes and observing their physical behavior. It is a mistake to confuse math and physics in this manner.
You don't know shit. My post history has defended classical theism, which is not deism, and is independent of Christianity. Furthermore, I never indicated that my post history professes my actual beliefs. Lastly, to speculate about my motivations as a believer is ad hominem.
Look shithead, even though in your everyday life you accept the existence of change, you want to be hard headed during this debate. Got it bro, fucking change doesn't exist. Atheists so smart super rational numba 1. So of course I can't change your mind, change doesn't exist. We won't change presidents. Change is a schizophrenic hallucination. The concept of the arrow of time never has had and never will have any clout in physics. Change doesn't exist. So simple everyone should have seen it before. I'll do you one better: the fucking universe doesn't exist bro. Nothing does!
You are as wrong about this as you are wrong about the percentage of Platonists among contemporary philosophers.
Aquinas was a genius. You know nothing of his extensive careful work. Your criticism is like, "lol Euclid was dumb because he's old and didn't even science."
To dismiss out of hand that which you do not understand is cowardly and intellectually dishonest.
You are not wrong. But also know that Aquinas' motivations were not to prove the existence of God to skeptical nonbelievers. His goal was to help religious holy men who already believed in God understand God better. For you to take a mathematician's rigor to attack him is a bit historically uncharitable. Nevertheless, modern Thomists would say come at me bro with everything you've got. Just like mathematicians have known how to count and add for a while, it wasn't until relatively recently in the history of math that mathematicians defined those concepts set theoretically. Just as there has been technical progress on counting and adding, concepts that the lay think have not been added to since antiquity, there has been technical progress in metaphysics, though the lay needn't know about it. You are happy to dismiss Aquinas as old and false, rather than attempting to charitably read him and reformulate his ideas in a contemporarily acceptable way. Rather than read to try to find any hints of truth anywhere, you are eager to find the possibility of the smallest falsehood, (like the reality of the existence of change), to dismiss all of the work of one of history's greatest thinkers. You are not exhibiting a mathematician's careful mind by throwing out the baby with the bath water like this. Even Andrew Wiles' proof had mistakes that needed to be corrected. Only a shitty mathematician would refuse to try to find the truth from Wiles' work, because he heard from the grapevine that the proof contained errors.
And you can't approximate Graham's number with a suspension bridge. So please please please tell me that mathematicians' work on Graham's number does not come to accurate conclusions about reality.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Please please please tell me what empirical means. I'll tell you right now that I'm setting a trap. Your stupid ass doesn't know how to go from senses to the existence of an external world. So please tell me what the fuck empiricism is, master philosopher.
gtfo. "He must meet my burden." A dumb atheist fucking up understanding burden of proof: shocking. :/
You childish atheists think "burden of proof" is a magical phrase that you can repeat to protect your worldview. Put your fingers in your ears, refuse to read anything because you know it's bullshit ahead of time, and shout, "lalala you didn't prove anything, burden of proof burden of proof, you can't prove anything if I keep my eyes shut lalala. I don't need to read anything lalala it's your job to convince me, and I'll never listen to what you have to say."
I did not dismiss Dawkins out of hand. I have studied Dawkins and Aquinas. I have studied them fairly, and in-depth, before dismissing Dawkins. You have admitted to reading neither. You still think you have a worthy opinion, though. You have at best a superficial understanding of the matters, and then defend ignorance because you think you know enough to dismiss it as bullshit. You do not know enough. Your premature dismissal is foolish. How stupid can you be that you do not understand the difference between dismissing something out of hand and dismissing something after fair and careful examination?