Griggsy

Originally posted by Griggsy

Aquinas' fourth way is his ontological argument,which reifies the continuum betwixt qualities.
He maintains that God is that ultimate perfection of all good qualities. But reifiying the continuum thus fails as do all his five ways yet Feser refuses to rise above him, thereby exposing himself as lacking in philosophical judgment!
Aquinas' fifth way fails, as it is like a bowman who puts the bull's-eye around the arrow after it has landed. Carneades' atelic argument notes that he begs the question of directed outcome, and the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument notes that he contradicts science instead of complementing it.
To prattle for any teleology means to use implicitly the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with causalism-mechanism-teleonomy when He directs the outcomes but no, necessity causes outcomes on its own.
Aquinas' Prime Mover argument fails due to the inherent order, chaos, regularity and natural laws. Things decay without a prime mover forcing them to do so. Newton's laws of motion account for motion, not this redundancy!
His second way, his hierarchical efficient series -explanation- fails,because natural causes themselves are that primary cause, and on which He'd have to depend as a secondary cause! He begs the question when he states that to take away the primary,efficient cause, one takes away all causes.
His contingency argument begs the question of that Necessary Being when he admbrates about contngency and necessary. Also, no ultimate origination happened to cause the Cosmos, so that ultimate contingency is nill! Eternal guantum energy, in line with the law of conservation illuminates that.
Aquinas and Feser then fail utterly with their obscurantism1
William Lane Craig fails utterly with the Kalam Cosmological argument as he begs the question of a starting point when everyday arrives on time forever! Potential infinitiy is actually the actual inininity as successive addition leads to further infinity,never reachng it. His library and hotel are just red herrings! He applies finite math to infinity with his silly contradictions!
Obscurantism does not lead to that more abundant life!