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||127||Citizen Attorney||22-Feb-07 01:41|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||110||Ghia||22-Feb-07 02:14|
|Here are the Five Ways||94||Citizen Attorney||22-Feb-07 02:52|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||92||Raja||22-Feb-07 21:14|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||86||Avatar||13-Jul-07 20:46|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||92||Raja||13-Jul-07 22:16|
|Re: Here are the Five Ways||79||Joyeuse||05-Mar-08 08:23|
|Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||90||Astikapati||22-Feb-07 03:39|
|Re: Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||52||Ghia||22-Feb-07 14:55|
|Re: Physics proof of God in one way :)))))))||103||Farseeker||22-Feb-07 22:27|
|Is the Universe digital? I'm not buying that.||81||come on pilgrim||23-Feb-07 01:17|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||104||David L||22-Feb-07 21:34|
|Re: Aquinas proof of God in Five Ways||91||Farseeker||22-Feb-07 22:23|
|All Things Desire||84||Raja||04-Mar-08 21:30|