Hello.
First I need to give a reminder. God is not just my God. Rather, he is the God of all. God of everything that exists.
True, there is one God. The God of all. But His name is not Allah. You worship a false God.
(Or at least, that is what very large number of monotheists, who are not Muslims, would say. Are you really and truly entirely incapable of clear thought? What earthly reason might there be to lend any more credence to your nonsense, than to their nonsense?)
(And likewise, polytheists would have a very different take on the God business. I don't suppose they'd condemn you to hellfire for your erroneous beliefs, as you readily condemn them --- which I suppose means their approach is more civilized than yours, at least in its effects --- but what I'm getting at is, yet again, what earthly reason is there to prefer your nonsense over their nonsense?)
I have already read what you have introduced. Thanking you. I did not know that you want to know my review about it. Well, please read the text below.
I have read 5 ways of proving God by Aquinas. All 5 of his ways are based on Aristotelian reasoning. In this regard, I will tell you the following points:...
... Argument has its roots in Aristotle. And with the interruption of several centuries, it has been transferred to the Western world through Islamic scholars, especially Ibn Sina. And Aquinas has adapted from Islamic scholars, especially Ibn Sina. The argument of the truthful has been invented by Ibn Sina in order to achieve the result in the shortest time and with less intermediaries.
Although there are common points between these two arguments, the argument of the truthful is simpler and more complete. The shortest and most accurate definition of this argument is that; There is no doubt that there is a creature. And every being is either obligatory or possible. If it is necessary, it is Obligatory and the result is achieved. If possible, the series of possibilities ends with the necessity of existence. pay attention; The cause of the chain of possibilities cannot be itself because it is possible.
And it must have an obligatory cause. Nothing can be the cause itself. None of the possibilities can be the cause of existence or the set of possibilities. Because it is possible. Any cause that is outside the range of possibilities of the world is in itself obligatory. In the argument of the truthful, there is a possible existence from the obligatory. That is, the obligatory self shows the possible....
... A verse from the Qur'an by God shows the argument of the righteous. Verse 53 of Sura 41 which shows the best meaning. Translation:
FoOladvand:
"We will soon show them Our signs in the horizons and in their hearts. To make it clear to them that he is right. Is it not enough that your Lord is Witness over all things?"
Pickthall" :We shall show them Our portents on the horizons and within themselves until it will be manifest unto them that it is the Truth. Doth not thy Lord suffice, since He is Witness over all things?"
The difference between the truthful argument and Aquinas is that he tried to prove God on the basis of sensory and empirical observation. While the argument of the truthful is based on pure rational principles and logic. Therefore, it has minor and much less problems. For us, time is not something independent of body and matter. It is the amount of motion of objects. Aquinas, on the other hand, is an independent container for time, and objects are created in the text of time.
Aquinas theory because it is a moderation. And it is based on social reality and it is theological. Therefore, it is less exposed to destruction and protest. And eventually led to modernity. John Locke has followed him and progressed astonishingly in the Western world. Because Aquinas' theory is based on theological principles, it is controversial to rational philosophers. ...
... Thinkers like Hume, Kant, Russell, Stuart Mill, and Plantinga also see it as flawed. And object to it. But it works theologically and Christianly. And it convinces the public. And they attack it less. Aquinas and his opponents of the philosophy pay less attention to rational principles. And they consider the nature and form of beings as the principle.
While the nature of objects can not be without its existence. That is, the existence of the body is the principle. And then the nature of the body comes into play.
Therefore, we object to the theory of Aquinas and his opponents, such as Hume, Kant, and so on. And both classes have problems.
We see the principle in the existence of objects. And we consider God the Creator of the world. And we consider God to be the agent of the perfect world. Not in detail. Therefore, we also see the causality and creation of things too other than God. But the perfect cause and the perfect creator is only God.
This was a summary of my review and critique of the theory and philosophy of Aquinas and her opponents.
Thank you all, dear associations.
You haven't. Without a shadow of doubt you haven't. You may have heard of Aquinas, sure. You may have read some historical details about him, sure. But your responses make very clear that you have
not actually read the discussion that I'd linked to, because you do not actually address what was discussed there, at all.
If you really wish to have something to show for the time you're spending here, if you really wish to understand why and how your "proofs" are incorrect, please translate that link I'd supplied there --- it's written clearly enough that it will survive the translation process largely coherent --- and actually read it, and actually try to understand what is being said there.
You're saying you disagree with Aquinas, but don't you see, man, that what you'd offered up here as your "proofs" are exactly what Aquinas had said? Even in these very comments you speak his words, when you say:
"The cause of the chain of possibilities cannot be itself because it is possible. And it must have an obligatory cause. Nothing can be the cause itself. None of the possibilities can be the cause of existence or the set of possibilities. Because it is possible. Any cause that is outside the range of possibilities of the world is in itself obligatory."
I'm calling BS here, this is not the translation software coming in the way of communication. It's you that's deliberately glossing over inconvenient arguments that invalidate your faith --- and practically everything that's being said here does that! --- and go back to mindlessly preaching the items of your absurd, irrational, ignorant, medieval faith. I don't see any reason to keep on engaging with it after this.
We keep saying your would-be proofs are infantile, not as empty put-down (that you may respond to, as you're doing here, by simply parroting your articles of faith again and again and yet again, and throwing in random non sequiturs into the mix). Exactly why they're infantile, given today's standards of knowledge, and exactly why they're wrong, by any standards at all, is clearly discussed there.
If you would take the trouble to sincerely go through it, and if despite the straightforward discussion there still are points in there that you do not understand, or that you do not, with reason, agree with, then, if you would clearly and sincerely raise your actual objections here, then people here will be happy to engage with your sincere arguments. That way you'll end up learning something.
Or else you could keep mindlessly repeating this unthinking irrational drivel again and again and again. Your choice.
