Refutation Of A Gambian Sophist And A Fraudster Final Part

By Gambian Outsider

Before beginning Part III of my refutation of Mr. Missionary, I want to apologize to the readers for the last post. The edited version that I sent to have it published did not come out in its entirety. Maafanta republished part II in its entirety. It was my fault. The method I used to send it was not the right way. So if anyone noticed that some things were missing, now you know why.

As will become clear in the succeeding paragraphs, this article is not about whether Mr. Missionary beliefs in God or not. My belief or his is not the issue, but the certainty of God’s existence. What I write here cannot and should not be used to imply that Mr. Missionary does not believe in God’s existence.

Quoting Mr. Missionary: “ He also added another example of God as a “certainty” forgetting that there are agnostics who don’t even agree to his [God’s] existence.”

There is a knot that needs to be untied first. This knot has three parts namely, Theist, Agnostic, and Atheist. What does each mean?

Theist: A person who believes that God exists. Atheist: A person who does not believe that God exist or does not believe that there is a God.

Here are a few definitions of agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or anything beyond material phenomena. A person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God; a person who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God; a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exist or not.

As you can Mr. Missionary what you said about agnostics is not true. May be you meant to say atheists and not agnostics. Agnosticism is the middle of the two extremes; between those who believe in God and those who do not. To believe in God means to believe in his existence. Now I have to demonstrate to your agnostic friends that God exists and that is a certainty. I quoted The Book of Proverbs at the end of part II, but I am not going to use any Theological teaching to prove the existence of God because that is easy enough to do to those who believe that God indeed does exist. I will employ teachings from observations about our world and apply reason to those observations. It does not matter whether Messr. Missionary meant agnostic or atheist. He can substitute either one. The existence of God can be proved in five ways. The list is not exhaustive:

The First Way: Argument from Motion:

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes action motion.

3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4. Nothing can be in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e. if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another.)

5. Therefore nothing can move itself.

6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at the first mover, put in motion by no other; and this we understand to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes:

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now

7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which we give the name God.

The Third Way; Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument):

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and of being, i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

1. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is acontingent being

2. Therefore not every being is a contingent being

3. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receireceiveveits existence from another being. This we speak of as God.

The Four Way: Argument from Gradation of Being:

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus

4. Therefore there must also be something, which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design:

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and not do so by chance.

2. Most natural things lack knowledge

3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligent.

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their existence and this being we call God.

The beautiful thing about the five points is that what is said in each one of them can be observe by the senses and confirmed by reason. No agnostic or atheist can say that if they open their eyes they cannot observe these truths.

These five points originate from Aristotle’s works and later adopted by the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas Aquinas. The version I adopted is the Angelic Doctor’s version.

Mr. Missionary, there is certainty and to think otherwise is absurd. The Sun does shine and if a blind man does not see it whose fault is it, the Sun or the blind man? The Sun is actually doing what it is supposed to do, but the blind man is not. By analogy, that God is certain is obvious enough and he or she does not confirm this is foolish!

Ends