Has anyone refuted Aquinas 5 ways?

[Anonymous No.17625099]

Have Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever been refuted properly by the fedoras?
The only arguments i've ever seen against them have been:

>How do you know your God is the right god
(Shifting the Goalposts and ultimately a useless argument against Perennialists)

>It's just a pseudo Intellectual word salad
(also not an argument, atleasy say what specifically is wrong with Aquinas arguments)
So ITT: Since God's existence has been Proved Metaphysically/Philosophically, Fedoras now need to disprove God, and refute Thomas Aquinas's 5 ways, a Summary of them is in the thread

[Anonymous No.17625105]

A summary of the 5 ways are:

1. In the world, we can see that at least some things are changing. Whatever is changing is being changed by something else. If that by which it is changing is itself changed, then it too is being changed by something else. But this chain cannot be infinitely long, so there must be something that causes change without itself changing. This everyone understands to be God.

2. In the world, we can see that things are caused. But it is not possible for something to be the cause of itself because this would entail that it exists prior to itself, which is a contradiction. If that by which it is caused is itself caused, then it too must have a cause. But this cannot be an infinitely long chain, so, there must be a cause which is not itself caused by anything further. This everyone understands to be God.

3. In the world we see things that are possible to be and possible not to be. In other words, perishable things. But if everything were contingent and thus capable of going out of existence, then, nothing would exist now. But things clearly do exist now. Therefore, there must be something that is imperishable: a necessary being. This everyone understands to be God.

4. We see things in the world that vary in degrees of goodness, truth, nobility, etc. For example, well-drawn circles are better than poorly drawn ones, healthy animals are better than sick animals. Moreover, some substances are better than others, since living things are better than non-living things, and animals are better than plants, in testimony of which no one would choose to lose their senses for the sake of having the longevity of a tree. But judging something as being "more" or "less" implies some standard against which it is being judged. For example in a room full of people of varying heights, at least one must be tallest. Therefore, there is something which is best and most true, and most a being, etc. Aquinas then adds the premise: what is most in a genus is the cause of all else in that genus. From this he deduces that there exists some most-good being which causes goodness in all else, and this everyone understands to be God.

5. We see various non-intelligent objects in the world behaving in regular ways. This cannot be due to chance since then they would not behave with predictable results. So their behavior must be set. But it cannot be set by themselves since they are non-intelligent and have no notion of how to set behavior. Therefore, their behavior must be set by something else, and by implication something that must be intelligent. This everyone understands to be God.

[Anonymous No.17625112]

>>17625099
>>17625105
The Buddha has refuted Aquinas

[Anonymous No.17625123]

>>17625099
What rationalists always fail to understand is that their ramblings never show anything. And by the way the idea of a proof or showing is a rationalist fantasy in the first place and it never ever worked. No rationalist ever proved anything... I know it hurts to read this and you cant only go into autistic screeching.

[Anonymous No.17625126]

I believe the only competent arguments against Aquinas would be found in Kant and Hume. Is change actually a real feature of the world? How do we know it is? Any epistemology that can successfully reject direct realism will successfully reject Aquinas

[Blarty Hongo !H0lVGXJNm6 No.17625142]

>>17625105
“Proofs” one and two don’t prove the existence of anything like the Christian god. It just proves (theoretically, anyway) that some kind of thing caused other things.

[Anonymous No.17625150]

Seems like some very strange notions of god.

[Anonymous No.17625159]

>>17625142
Aquinas goes on to demonstrate that subsistent actuality would necessarily be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. His 5 Ways are only brief sunmaries designed as introdctionss to the subject. After them he writes several hundred pages elaborating on them

[Anonymous No.17625189]

>>17625099
>Have Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever been refuted properly by the fedoras?
That shit was written hundreds of years ago, of course someone has refuted it by now.

[Anonymous No.17625195]

>>17625105
First 3 are virtually the same argument and fail to answer what caused God. Or if God doesn't need a cause why does the universe? 4th one is ridiculous and makes me doubt that if Aquinas knew basic math. What is the most abstract representation of "more" or "less"? Numbers. Is there a largest number? 5th is just the argument from design aka paranoia and conspiracy theory.

[Anonymous No.17625201]

I am tired of seeing all these threads about the five ways. Aquinas has written much more interesting things than the five ways and the five ways aren't very serious theology.

[Anonymous No.17625208]

>>17625189
>the pythagorean theorem was written thousands of years ago, of course someone refuted it by now

[Anonymous No.17625213]

>>17625099
no. nobody has.
Hume self refutes before even trying btw
>>17625112
the Buddha also refutes himself just more litteraly.

[Anonymous No.17625226]

>>17625189
you'd be wrong to think that, everyone who tried fallacies himself to lulzageddon

[Anonymous No.17625240]

>>17625213
>the Buddha also refutes himself
lmao no

[Anonymous No.17625259]

>>17625201
I dont understand the concept of an agent intellect. Shouldn't God be the only agent intellect? How can we freely actualize knowledge? I'm trying to read through Gilson but I guess i'm a midwit because it's extremely dry and mind numbing

[Anonymous No.17625323]

>>17625259
>I'm trying to read through Gilson but I guess i'm a midwit
I know the feeling bro.

[Blarty Hongo !H0lVGXJNm6 No.17625417]

>>17625159
Why call them proofs, then, if they're just introductions to some other multi-hundred-page proof that allegedly proves the existence of the Christian god?

[Anonymous No.17625677]

>>17625417
Because they are proofs

[Anonymous No.17625703]

>>17625105
Hahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahaha this is some /x/ tier argumentation