Dawkins addresses Thomas Aquinas' Proofs

[Will]

St. Thomas Aquinas was an Italian priest and philosopher who lived about 750 years ago. Among his many teachings and philosophies were his "Five Proofs" which were supposed to prove the existence of god. Apparently, there were atheists back then.

Neeways, in chapter three of Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion (or The G_d Delusion, Jewish edition), we see Dr. Dawkins specifically address each of the proofs, which are as follows:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Frighteningly, these very "proofs" are still used today, despite being so very outdated. Below is a link to Richard Dawkins refuting said proofs:

[youtube:1knqiwwg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrtlyZPYmRE[/youtube:1knqiwwg]

Please enjoy~!

[Evolved]

Thanks, Will.  Very informative and interesting.  It's amazing how they still use these arguments.

I will argue this one point, however:

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.

There is an intelligent designer.  Armani.

[Martian]

I will argue this one point, however:

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.

There is an intelligent designer.  Armani.

What makes you say this?

[Will]

Well played, I have to concede that point. Armani makes some good suits (thought I still prefer Hugo Boss).

[jcm]

I really like what was said about gold. Gold is not gold all the way down. Nothing is what it is all the way down, not even people. I think religious types see it the other way. If people are people all the way down, then I would agree with the idea of the soul. But a person can be broken into parts, ultimately energy. It is clear that the way the parts are put together is what makes the difference, not the parts themselves.

[SteveS]

Great vid, Will.  I read the book, but there's nothing quite like Dawkin's voice and mannerism to drive it home!

[myleviathan]

All hail the Dark Lord Dawkins!

[Evolved]

What makes you say this?

Suits fit like a glove.

[nikkixsugar]

I will argue this one point, however:

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.

There is an intelligent designer.  Armani.

What makes you say this?

EXACTLY! you are so wrong. That's nothing to joke about. I believe in the poly-intelligent designer (?) Gucci and Chanel.