For Jake

[☭proletarian☭]

1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.

Fail. The laws of physics which imply that something must be set in motion apply within the universe, not to the universe. Hence, the universe could come into existence if the laws that exist in the nothingness, on the Brane, or in the cosmic foam (whatever model/hypothesis you wish to use). Hence, no first mover has been shown necessary.

2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.

Repeating #1 doesn't make it any more valid

3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.

Fail. The being ceases to exist in that form. The molecules which comprise it continue to exist, either as matter or as energy (since matter and energy can be converted into eachother). This, too is a repeatof #1 in different terms and all it achieves is calling The Big Bang... God.

- GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.

Self-refuting. It says that some things are greater than others, not that there is necessarily always a thing greater than any given thing. Secondly, the second sentence fails- it actually is great only in comparison to a lesser thing. Thirdly, the premise necessitates something greater than God and something greater still ad infinitum.

5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.

First sentence: Demonstrate that they serve any ultimate end.

Second sentence: Again, this is assuming some ultimate end is present. I reject this axiom and demand evidence of any 'ultimate purpose'.

Third sentence: Back to ID being religion....

Forth sentence: not a valid logical conclusion from the above nonsense.


There ya go- TA was an idiot and his 5 assertions are refuted- again.