I can't recall the five ways, but one of them had to do with the need for a prime mover, and God was that prime mover.
My question to those of you who know the five ways is whether it is really fair to call them a proof.
A proof should be quite definitive, and it seems impossible to do so with concepts of the existence or non existence of God.
|Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||146||Citizen Attorney||22-Feb-07 01:41|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||118||Ghia||22-Feb-07 02:14|
|Here are the Five Ways||105||Citizen Attorney||22-Feb-07 02:52|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||101||Raja||22-Feb-07 21:14|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||93||Avatar||13-Jul-07 20:46|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||101||Raja||13-Jul-07 22:16|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||95||Joyeuse||05-Mar-08 08:23|
|Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||97||Astikapati||22-Feb-07 03:39|
|Re: Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||71||Ghia||22-Feb-07 14:55|
|Re: Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||119||Farseeker||22-Feb-07 22:27|
|Is the Universe digital? I'm not buying that.||89||come on pilgrim||23-Feb-07 01:17|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||113||David L||22-Feb-07 21:34|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||99||Farseeker||22-Feb-07 22:23|
|All Things Desire||91||Raja||04-Mar-08 21:30|