Voice of Reason, if no one has answered, I think the title of the scarecrow that the wizard granted him was Doctor of thinkology.
Here are some refutations of Thomas Aquinas Five Proofs. I wrote this a long time ago and got most of these ideas from Dan Baker, a proponent of the freethought (freedom from religion) movement. However, I do credit him begrudgingly. After reading some of his other essays (especially one about contradictions in the bible) I question his ability to foil one of the greatest theologians of all time and would guess the arguments originally came form someone else.
--------------------------------------------------------
[...]Perhaps the most easily refuted argument supporting the existence of a deity is known as the cosmological argument, which is probably better known as the First Cause Argument. Basically, it states that there must have been some force to initiate the formation of the universe. The argument, based on Isaac Newtons Laws of Motion, seems to make a good case, and for a time it seemed there was a flaw in the modern theory of the universe. Newtons First Law of Motion states that object tends to stay at rest unless otherwise acted upon by a net force. In other words, nothing will move spontaneously, as it must have some force that causes it to move. Newtons Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal but oppositely directed action within the system. Together, these two Laws make it clear that in order for something to begin, something else has to start it.
Naturalists believe that we are strictly the result of the causal effect, that is to say, a long chain of events brought us to where we are today. Theists also believe that everything has a cause. However, they argue that there must have been something to initiate this chain reaction of cause effect relationships.
There are two crucial errors in this proponent argument for theism. The underlying premise of the argument is that everything has a cause and the rationale behind the argument is that God must be the First Cause. Where these two statements come together is where fact becomes fallacy. It is in itself a contradictory argument. It is a possibility that God commenced the creation of the universe, but by the First Cause argument everything must have a first cause. This calls for a creator of God, as something must cause him to cause the creation. So, by the First Cause Argument, there must be an infinite number of gods that created another god, and somewhere along the line one of these gods decided that instead of forming another God they would create a universe.
Theists will reply that nothing caused God. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas commented on this the cosmological argument, rephrasing it my stating that motion has a force that caused the move, and that ultimately the first mover was unmoved. This uncaused cause causes the argument to fall apart, as it cannot go in both directions or else it will disprove that which it is attempting to prove. Again, theology will say that God has always existed, but if it is possible for God to have always been, thus not having a respective cause, then it is just as reasonable to believe that the universe has always existed without a respective cause.
Even assuming that there is a First Cause still does not prove that the cause was a divine being. An effect, in itself, cannot indicate the cause of the effect. If a dog dies, it is not reasonable to just look at it and assume that it was poisoned. However, by performing proper examination, it can be proven that it was poisoned. Likewise, looking at our universe will not indicate the First Cause. However, by examining the first effects we will gain more knowledge of their respective cause. Thus, the First Cause cannot be proven until we are certain exactly what the first effects were.
It is extremely improbable that the complex nature of our universe came together as the product of randomness. An environment that is capable of sustaining life is nothing short of a miracle, and later we will explore these probabilities. As for now, just know this evidence provides powerful support for the existence of a creator that has become known as the teleological argument. The way that life has come about suggests, what has come to be known as an intelligent design. This design is so complex that it seems essential for someone to have designed it. Theology has named this someone to be God.
This argument for God does make a good case. However it is lacking solidity to give it any form of a foundation. It is based on probability, and states that the low probability of our universe coming about the way that it is now points to a high possibility of an intelligent designer. This inference may point to a god, but it, in no way, proves the existence of a god. For example, it is extremely improbable that any two random numbers add up to four. However, if the random numbers are greater than zero, there is a limit on the maximum number, and a limit on the minimum number, then there is a possibility that the two numbers will indeed add up to four, based on the magnitude between limits. Saying that it is actually impossible for our universe to randomly be able to support life is like saying that it is unlikely for two plus two to be chosen, therefore it cannot occur.
From an atheistic standpoint, the universe does contain design to a degree, however there was nothing that designed it. Design does not require a designer if it designs itself based on the same probability that supports the existence of intelligence behind it. The way that we have come to perceive our universe does not require a mind to dictate its form. It is rather the result of a natural regularity that fell into order by itself, and otherwise could not exist. This view eliminates the need for a higher being.
It is also possible to life to form as the product of randomness, as well as its change by means of natural selection. Biology does not claim that we developed by a single mutation that occurred by chance. However, species are the result of small changes over large periods of time as they developed purposefully and objectively in order to survive.
This argument of probability also ties back to the First Cause Argument. The universe consists of everything that exists. An existing god would be a part of the universe, and if the design of the universe is explained by means of a god, then the god also requires an explanation. This god, requiring an explanation would need a god to explain its existence.
Furthermore, the god that created the universe must be at least as complex as the universe that it created. Based on probability, it is just as likely that a god this complex exists as it is for the universe as complex as ours to exist. Also a god that created the natural laws that govern our universe must have a mind that is also governed by certain principles. Therefore, if the natural laws of our universe require a lawgiver, then a higher lawgiver must also govern the god that created them. Attempting to explain the creator of the universe based on probability only leads to circular reasoning, which explains nothing.
There are two pieces of evidence that points to the existence of divinity lies within our own being. Augustine originally set forth the first piece of evidence among his five irrefutable proofs of Gods existence, which became known as the ontological Argument. It is based on the premise that man is aware of God, and he asserts that because we have this consciousness that God himself must imprinted us with it. The belief in divinity can be traced back to the beginning of recorded history, and the existence of divinity has been acknowledged as a possibility by practically every culture. Augustine believed that this was no coincidence. After all, how else could multiple cultures hold this common ground of faith, as no one has ever seen a divine being?
The argument was later modified into a slightly different philosophy by Saint Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Within this argument, he reasoned that God is something greater than anything that can be conceived, and that existence in reality is greater than existence in understanding, therefore God must exist. One of his contemporary monks, Guanilo, later wrote about Anselms philosophical view on Gods existence in his work titled, On Behalf of the Fool. His criticisms of Anselm include a parody in which he replaces something greater than anything that can be conceived with an island greater than any that can be conceived and then proceeds to prove the existence of the greatest island. With Anselms logic that can prove the existence of virtually anything, the ontological argument falls apart.
Still, one must wonder what causes all people to seemingly know that a god exists. The easiest way to go about answering this question is to consider the origins of the gods of different cultures. Many ancient cultures had multiple gods. These gods did not exist because people enjoyed fearing them and making sacrifices to them. These cultures created the different gods to serve a purpose. The purpose was simply to explain that which was unknown to them. It is much easier to explain the rain by means of a god than to explain the condensation of water vapor, especially if the concepts are unheard of. For these cultures, the gods were science. Even today, religions use a God or gods to explain subject matters such as creation. This is not necessarily wrong; however look at the progression of the human race. We have obtained considerably more knowledge, and generally speaking, have maintained considerably fewer gods. Many people would even consider it foolish to believe in a rain god or a sun god or a mischief god, simply because we now know how these principles work. It seems the more we learn, the fewer gods we need.
The second piece of evidence that lies within human beings is the trait that some claim to be the trait that makes us human, more than mere animal. This trait is the ability to tell right from wrong. The conscience that all human beings posses comprises the moral argument for the existence of divinity. In looking at different societies, it is very evident that they all have roughly the same set of moral values. Throughout human history, many societies that could not have possibly had any contact with one another have had nearly identical sets of laws. It seems that the only possible cause of this similarity in morals could have been was a divine being that instilled them within us.
This poses a very interesting argument about the origin of our general frame of mind and our deepest feelings. However, the strongest repudiation that is given in response cannot be understood in its entirety without a better background in science and biology. This topic will be discussed later in greater detail, but for now I will explain it with a different approach.
Ethical systems are primarily based on the value of life and classify the effects imposed upon it. If something generally enhances or helps life it becomes classified as good. If something degrades or harms life it is bad or evil. If this is the case, why would it be necessary for God to instill knowledge of good and evil within us? Rather, it would be a simple issue of what is for the general good for society as a whole, and what is not good for the society as a whole. The ability to reason gives us the ability to determine what is considerate or humane, and that which is not good for others.
Furthermore, while the belief systems in many cultures are similar, they do contain their differences. Many cultures permit and even embrace practices that appall other cultures. For instance, cannibalism, spousal abuse, rape, polygamy, and incest are considered acceptable in some societies and even considered moral in others. If God instilled our moral values, he did not give everyone the same values. If two conflicting values are God given are they both right? If there is an absolute right, why have we been given contradicting moral perspectives? [...]
--------------------------------
First of all, each of these refutations can still be refuted. The argument can go on and on in circles if those participating do not agree on certain aspects of the argument. Secondly, I did not formulate these refutations in order to denounce theology. The concepts behind the arguments for the existence of a divine being are not necessarily wrong, but some of the logic behind them is. The concepts are only wrong if they are used as arguments. They are in fact not arguments at all, as others have called them, because they prove nothing. They are merely pieces of evidence that could suggest a divine being.
