patrick.net

Dan8267 says

An example of even a broken clock being right some of the time and why the content, not the source, determines the validity of a point.

As Socrates said knowing that you don't know is THE prerequisite to learning. You need that remedial...

indigenous says

You want a physical universe description of something that is exterior to the physical universe. It is something that is not organic to the physical universe.

So in other words, a soul is by definition supernatural. Then your soul is bullshit and does not exist.

Nothing supernatural could interact with the natural world in any way shape or form without violating conservation laws, which simply does not happen. A ghost could not lift a penny because doing so would introduce measurable amounts of energy to the system as well as violating the conservation of momentum. Put simply, if anything interacts with the natural world, it must obey natural laws, and is therefore natural, not supernatural, itself. So if anything does exist out of nature, by natural law, it cannot interact with anything in nature. It cannot even send a signal or message to nature.

Therefore, the soul you postulate can not exist as you require it to both be supernatural and to have an effect in nature.

Whether or not you accept this argument is irrelevant. It is logically consistent and only depends on well-accepted laws of nature that have never been observed to be violated. And if you truly reject those laws, then you should be daftly afraid of the U.S. possessing nuclear weapons as well as being afraid of airplanes and automobiles because all of these technologies depend upon our accepted laws of nature being accurate.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

You want a physical universe description of something that is exterior to the physical universe. It is something that is not organic to the physical universe.

If it's exterior to the physical universe, where does it exist?

How much does it weigh?

The attempt of proof is easier done via a negative. To this day computers are not able to emulate a soul with all its complexities and feelings. People have been saying that it's just a matter of time for a while now, but there is something lacking in AI which has had a tremendously hard time in becoming even vaguely human in any way.

thunderlips11 says

Why? He's a religious thinker who 'proved' that masturbation was worse than rape using the Bible.

I'm just talking about the one aspect of his work. No one should be deified as perfect.

thunderlips11 says

If it's exterior to the physical universe, where does it exist?

How much does it weigh?

Is a soul made of hydrogen, helium or carbon?

To know an object is to be able to describe its properties and behaviors. For example, I know what a ball is because I can list its properties (radius, color, elasticity, mass, etc.) and behaviors (throwing, bouncing, rolling, interactions with other objects). I know what an electron is because I can its properties (charge, mass, speed and location (granted with a degree of uncertainty), etc) and its behaviors (attraction to positive charges, lack of decay, interactions with photons, etc.). Knowing a thing is knowing its properties and behaviors.

If you cannot list the properties and behaviors of a soul, then you don't know what it is. If you don't know what it is and there is no reason to believe it exists, then you are just making up bullshit. I could just as easily say that every person has an invisible, undetectable, supernatural elf in his ass that is responsible for every thought, every feeling, and every action made by that person. Such an argument would carry as much weight as indigenous's soul argument.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Think Thomas Aquinas.

Why? He's a religious thinker who 'proved' that masturbation was worse than rape using the Bible.

So true. People who appeal to authority using Thomas Aquinas are idiots. He's a typical Dark Age pseudo-intellect.

The belief in souls is just evolutionary and cultural baggage. This is how the fiction of a soul was invented.

www.youtube.com/embed/V9mFNgu6Cww

More on religious nonsense.

www.youtube.com/embed/uFrcu0kbKOY

Not sure about the very end of the video, but it does show that people will believe ridiculous things because of their ignorance. It should be no surprise that thousands of times as many religions were created in antiquity than are created today. Ignorance breeds religion.

indigenous says

In a place that has no time, that has no dimension, and has no form, i.e. it, we are exterior to all.

WHERE is that?
HOW do you know such a place exists?
indigenous says

And I'm not surprised by your conclusion. You are well read but don't offer much insight...

But enough insight to know that an assertion offered without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Quoting Medieval Barbarian Theologians who themselves are quoting an Iron Age Book is an argument from authority. YOU should be able to summarize Aquinas' evidences FOR souls in a pithy fashion yourself. Of course, Aquinas simply took souls as a given, in that Dark Age.

Dan8267 says

If you cannot list the properties and behaviors of a soul, then you don't know what it is. If you don't know what it is and there is no reason to believe it exists, then you are just making up bullshit. I could just as easily say that every person has an invisible, undetectable, supernatural elf in his ass that is responsible for every thought, every feeling, and every action made by that person. Such an argument would carry as much weight as indigenous's soul argument.

Exactly.

What we are going to get now is a bunch of a priori "logical" reasoning based on some assumptions that have not been proven.

We will hear that there is a Space Duck in our brains, who lives beyond the universe; which contacts us somehow from beyond the universe. Then we will hear "The Space Duck explains X, Y, and Z. Read Thomas Aquackus"

But without first proving there is a Space Duck, and that it resides in a Place beyond the Physical Universe, and we know it and the place it dwells in exists because of evidences A, B, and C, any and all "logical" reasoning arising from a Space Duck in our brains rests on unproven assumptions and therefore can be dismissed.

indigenous says

As Socrates said knowing that you don't know is THE prerequisite to learning. You need that remedial...

But once you've learn something, you do know. Again, appeal to authority means nothing and is the tool of the weak minded.

However, if we're going to use that principle, then you should reject all religion and all supernatural beliefs. Such beliefs were created because of ignorance. An earthquake happens and the clerics say "the gods are angry with us" because they don't know about plate tectonics. Lighting strike and Zeus is angry because the ancients have no concept of the electromagnetic force and Faraday's Laws. Today, ignorant and foolish people take any mystery as room for bullshit. This is the God of the Gaps argument.

The only honest statement about a mystery is "I don't know the answer, yet." not "god did it.". This is why belief in the supernatural that you propose violates the very principle you are trying to use to support your supernatural nonsense.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

Why? He's a religious thinker who 'proved' that masturbation was worse than rape using the Bible.

I'm just talking about the one aspect of his work. No one should be deified as perfect.

The fact that you used Appeal to Authority opens your authority up to attack. If you don't want the baggage associate with a person, then make the argument you think is right based on its merit rather than who originally authored that argument. You reference a Dark Age idiot expecting us to accept his arguments, not based on any reason or evidence, but simply because he's famous and popular in some circles of academia.

Yes, a broken clock can be right sometimes, but you have given us no reason why we should cherry-pick the same arguments from Aquinas that you do. Why should those arguments, which you never even properly or clearly reference, be accepted when others should be rejected? In other words, you don't support the arguments in any way except Appeal to Authority and the authority you appeal to is a well-known idiot who thinks that masturbation is far worse than rape! Yeah, that's going to be convincing.

By the way, saying that no one is perfect is just a cop-out to dismiss criticism of your debunked source. One could just as easily dismiss the horrors of the holocaust by saying the Nazi's weren't perfect. It's a dumb argument no matter who you are trying to absolve, and such arguments are very inconsistently used. A private citizen kills a cop he feels threaten by and he gets the death penalty. A cop kills a sleeping 9-year-old girl or an unarmed man who is no threat, and the cop is acquired before trial because nobody is perfect. Very inconsistent with the alleged principle. Very consistent with hypocrisy.

thunderlips11 says

We will hear that there is a Space Duck in our brains, who lives beyond the universe; which contacts us somehow from beyond the universe. Then we will hear "The Space Duck explains X, Y, and Z. Read Thomas Aquackus"

The reality is that if Thomas Aquinas had used logic correctly and state that the Christian god does not exist, he would have been executed, burned at the stake as a heretic. Given that, should we really consider his work to be honest? Aquinas certainly was not unaware of the monstrous cruelty of his religion. Essentially, he was no different than a modern day Arabic Muslim who believes that anyone not a Muslim is an infidel. Giving Aquinas respect is like giving Osama bin Laden respect.

indigenous says

More traditional family structures might suddenly seem less oppressive in the face of great economic uncertainty

I never pass up an opportunity to ridicule the term "single mom", which is always said with a plaintive little whine as though the moron in that predicament couldn't have avoided it if she'd had half a brain. We had a good example in Las Vegas when a 25 year "single mom" who was "stressed out" (another current excuse term) because security guards wouldn't let her sleep in her parked car and decided to mow down people on the sidewalk, killing one and inuring others. This example from Jim Crow 1956 probably never occurred to her: http://www.shorpy.com/node/13115?size=_original#caption

indigenous says

Schools and universities might rediscover the value of teaching practical skills, instead of whitewashed history and grievance studies.

It made a former liberal editor of our local newspaper mad when I wrote a letter in response to a story about problems in schools today and said "My mother (1902-1997) and her generation was the last generation of real teachers to teach real subjects in real schools. She taught the greatest generation as youngsters in the 20's and 30's who would in a few years be winning World War II. Youngsters their age today are scared to death of words! The editor, John Young, whom I still admired, left Waco for Colorado Springs a couple of years later, finding I'm sure a more hospitable place for his ideas.

This subject can be summed up by Aquinas' the unmoved mover/prime mover and causality and that the cause is exterior to the moved. Yes a priori and the 5 ways that prove God exists.

thunderlips11 says

HOW do you know such a place exists?

Everyone achieves this by death, some get exterior without death, either way this is a subjective thing.

Dan and Lips want to get out a microscope to look at something only visible through a telescope, metaphorically speaking. But since you already know about this it is a waste of time to try and show you anything...

Dan8267 says

Aquinas certainly was not unaware of the monstrous cruelty of his religion.

actually, christianity itself doesn't dictate cruelty at all, utterly unlike islam.

but once government and religion were unified, yes, of course people had no right to question it, because that would be questioning the government.

Dan8267 says

Aquinas certainly was not unaware of the monstrous cruelty of his religion.

actually, christianity itself doesn't dictate cruelty at all, utterly unlike islam.

but once government and religion were unified, yes, of course people had no right to question it, because that would be questioning the government.

Agreed. I still see the egregious need to vilify Christianity and other mostly peaceful religions here. Christianity always had a large spectrum of totally different branches and mostly only became violent when government took it over. Compared to all the good things it has brought and the amount of people its missionaries have helped it is certainly at least a wash, probably much better (and this is completely separate from the topic of whether someone thinks it is logical to have such a belief or not). And even the (believed to be) Christian faiths considered more "radical" such as Jehova's Witnesses or Scientology leave the rest of the population largely alone.

but once government and religion were unified, yes, of course people had no right to question it

Politicians Incessantly want to conflate the two. The constituents are oblivious to the illogic of this.

indigenous says

This subject can be summed up by Aquinas' the unmoved mover/prime mover and causality and that the cause is exterior to the moved. Yes a priori and the 5 ways that prove God exists.

That goes back to Plato - but it's a theory without evidence, and therefore is FLOOSH! dismissed. It's only dorm room bullshit session material.

indigenous says

thunderlips11 says

HOW do you know such a place exists?

Everyone achieves this by death, some get exterior without death, either way this is a subjective thing.

How do you know this? Did you talk to somebody who came back after being Dead a while?

indigenous says

Dan and Lips want to get out a microscope to look at something only visible through a telescope, metaphorically speaking. But since you already know about this it is a waste of time to try and show you anything...

The point is YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SHOW. Only a priori bullshitting. If you want to show something, show the evidence for your assumptions, rather than assuming the evidence and reasoning from there.

mell says

Christianity always had a large spectrum of totally different branches and mostly only became violent when government took it over.

For many centuries in Europe, there was no separation of church and state. So, it's not that they government took over the church, it's that the church was the government. Unfortunately, we have certain actors in america who don't believe in separation of church and state, who don't respect that separation and who are not content to practice the faith within the confines of their church and their homes. And they make up all sorts of excuses how they are being oppressed how they cannot live according to their conscience and how they have a non negotiable one path to salvation (which for some reasons requires them to disregard the separation and compare the current american government to roman heathen).

thunderlips11 says

Seriously, by having a largely homogeneous population, it's easier to solve problems as everybody is unified. You can't blame various social problems on another race, since there really aren't any sizable numbers of them, and since it's not an issue, improving things is actually a lot easier.

If you believe that americans would be more receptive to a european welfare state model if everyone was of the same race, you are greatly mistaken. United States if the most individualistic nation on the face of the earth and this form of goverment/social structure will be met with fierce resistance regardless of the demographics of the population.

actually, christianity itself doesn't dictate cruelty at all, utterly unlike islam.

Unfortunately, that doesn't matter. What matters is how the followers behave, and that is never constricted by the good parts of a holy text because if the followers were rational in the first place, they would not be followers. The Christian mythology promotes both good and evil, even the New Testament is pro-slavery, but even if we had a morally perfect New Testament, it doesn't make a difference. The real history of actual Christianity bears no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Oh, and Jesus's teachings aren't that great. They are no different than what every society teaches to young children, say kindergarteners. Be nice to people. Don't be mean. Such childish teachings, however pleasing to our desires, are utterly inadequate for the complex modern world. Hell, they weren't even adequate to the ancient world. If a man breaks into your home intent on raping your entire family, you should not harm him in any way according to Jesus's teachings. "Whatever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me." So you have to let him rape your entire family comforted in the knowledge that enduring this suffering is what god wants and give you a place in heaven, which is all that matters. Suffering in this life doesn't matter at all.

How much more does Jesus's teachings fail to address modern moral problems like
- protecting the environment for future generations
- man-made mass extinctions of wild life
- the rights of sentient non-human life on Earth like apes, dolphins, and whales
- the development of artificial intelligence than may achieve sentience
- the morality of capitalism and how it creates economic inequality
- the exploitation of less developed nations by more developed ones
- the moral dilemmas of genetic manipulation of offspring including manipulations for resisting diseases, increasing intelligence, preventing birth defects, and choosing physical traits like blue eyes
- if we achieve interstellar travel and find native life forms on other planets, how do we treat them, as pure resources or as creatures with rights

There are many moral questions that apply to the modern era that simply would be nonsensical to the Iron Age. Jesus's moral teachings are a dismal failure when applied to the modern times. We need deeper and more advanced morality based on our enhanced understanding of mathematics and nature. We need morality based on game theory, not fictitious gods and supernatural forces.

but once government and religion were unified, yes, of course people had no right to question it, because that would be questioning the government.

And that is a fundamental flaw of all religions no matter how good their tenants, holy text, or clerics are. Any irrational system can be co-opted by governments and other organizations with nefarious agendas precisely because the people are accepting irrationality. Rational people are exponentially harder to manipulate than irrational ones. Religion not only promotes but in fact demands irrationality in the form of faith. If one is crazy enough to have faith in a god, then one is crazy enough to following the image of a god, projected by bad people, that promotes evil and violent actions.

The only cure for not following a bad religion is not following any religion.

mell says

Christianity always had a large spectrum of totally different branches and mostly only became violent when government took it over.

More precisely, when the branch became powerful. All religions that gain power do evil and, almost by definition, become the government because they are authority centers.

mell says

Compared to all the good things it has brought and the amount of people its missionaries have helped it is certainly at least a wash, probably much better.

Far worse when you include big events like the crusades, the Inquisition, the genocides of the Native Americans, and the Holocaust.

And quite frankly the good attributed to religion would have happened without religion. There is an altruistic aspect of human nature that has nothing to do with religion. Hell, it's not just human nature. Squirrels have altruism, but not religion. Altruism does not require lies about supernatural entities. In fact, altruism is more stable without such lies.

thunderlips11 says

That goes back to Plato - but it's a theory without evidence, and therefore is FLOOSH! dismissed.

How do you refute it? Floosh does not count.

thunderlips11 says

Did you talk to somebody who came back after being Dead a while?

Sactly

thunderlips11 says

a priori bullshitting.

So then you could throw out Pythagoras therom as it is merely a priori.

dublin hillz says

If you believe that americans would be more receptive to a european welfare state model if everyone was of the same race, you are greatly mistaken.

I'm not so sure about that. Most of the rejection of social safety nets by conservatives is based on their faulty assumption that it's blacks getting free stuff. In reality these social services are used by whites and veterans, but the perception among red necks is that it's all blacks getting free stuff and so they oppose it.

indigenous says

So then you could throw out Pythagoras therom as it is merely a priori.

Clearly that is not what thunderlips11 is saying. The Pythagorean Theorem has many a priori proofs. You have provided no proofs but only circular logic and assertions.

dublin hillz says

mell says

Christianity always had a large spectrum of totally different branches and mostly only became violent when government took it over.

For many centuries in Europe, there was no separation of church and state. So, it's not that they government took over the church, it's that the church was the government. Unfortunately, we have certain actors in america who don't believe in separation of church and state, who don't respect that separation and who are not content to practice the faith within the confines of their church and their homes. And they make up all sorts of excuses how they are being oppressed how they cannot live according to their conscience and how they have a non negotiable one path to salvation (which for some reasons requires them to disregard the separation and compare the current american government to roman heathen).

And yet the Magna Carta emerged fairly early on. I would assert that the times you are mentioning were short-lived. Religion always influenced politics but there hardly ever was a government solely government by religious dogma throughout Christianity. Bear in mind that for many issues moral and even practical arguments have long coexisted side-by-side with arguments solely based on religion. There are plenty of people for example that make a case for why homosexuality or abortion is "wrong" to them without citing religion (no matter whether one agrees with this or not). Ironically all the greatness and standard of living (as well as the few dark spots) that has emerged from Europe and the US and which we still benefit from today has been achieved mostly under Christian influence (not dogma) or a predominantly Christian culture (with all of its offshoots). I can only speculate the cases you are referring and but none of those involve violence against others, more like passive resistance. I do not share the notion that the US has any significant problem with Christians if that was what you were alluding to.

indigenous says

How do you refute it? Floosh does not count.

I don't refute it on the ground that "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." The burden is on YOU to show evidence for it.

indigenous says

Sactly

What does this mean?

indigenous says

So then you could throw out Pythagoras therom as it is merely a priori.

The Pythagorean Theory is a descriptive method for determining geometry.
Your half-clever rejoinder, learned from fringe Medieval Theologian Worshipers, would be "Oh, but there's no physical evidence."
This is like saying "Prove a meter is a meter." or "Prove that blue is blue." or "Prove that the rectangle is a rectangle and not a square."

Showing there is a prime mover cannot be done with pure logic and no evidence from observation.

The difference between science and philosophy is that science demands evidence first, and creates hypothesis using logic chains.

Philosophy assumes much, and then uses a priori logic from there.

This is why Science is superior to Philosophy, and why 3000 years of Philosophy produced little (and when it did it was following the scientific method of observation) and 200 years of Science has changed the world.

The proof is in the pudding.

dublin hillz says

If you believe that americans would be more receptive to a european welfare state model if everyone was of the same race, you are greatly mistaken. United States if the most individualistic nation on the face of the earth and this form of goverment/social structure will be met with fierce resistance regardless of the demographics of the population.

The 1940s-1970s was the time when the US was the most culturally homogeneous it ever was. Lowest numbers of Immigrants in the 20th Century, and even most Blacks tried to "act White". Malcolm X joked about Blacks in Boston who cleaned for a Bank saying "I work in Finance". Blacks used to wear suits and fedoras on their spare time if they could afford it so they would look "respectable".

The current wave of Anti-Government attitudes is the result of Me-Me-Me Baby Boomers, who grew up in the Half-Socialist Post-War Prosperity, which itself was instituted due to fear of a second Great Depression caused by lack of demand leading to a Communist Revolution, and who knew nothing but endless growth in childhood and young adulthood and falsely believed the only barriers to achievement they faced was Regulation, and is about to expire along with them. And a large group of Young People faces fierce competition for mates, so trying to be special snowflakes and be "self-actualized" and all that crap is probably caused by that as well. That and the Silents and Greatests that ran society when they were Young made it to revolve around the benefit of the Young BBs. When BBs got older, they kicked the ladder out behind them since they were used to having society revolve around them in all stages of their life.

Now that they get older, you're going to see lifetime right-wing Boomers demand Nursing Home regulation, mandatory Medicare payments for Home Health Aides and Buttwiping, etc. Just like when they started to buy houses, they killed off affordable housing subsidies; when they passed their college years they turned against College Tuition subsidies. When they entered their peak earning years they fulminated against the high tax rates that provided the affordable housing and subsidized tuition policies (and libraries, parks, etc.) they enjoyed when they themselves were young, benefiting from all that spending as children, but not having to pay the taxes for it.

In fact, many BBs that were previously libertarian/right-wing nuts as young and middle aged adults now find themselves facing age prejudice and can't get jobs despite their skills in their late 50s and 60s, are getting the painful antidote to the Kool-Aide they drank most of their lives. Even though many of them were themselves constantly undermining their own mentors and superiors on account of their age and 'out-of-touchiness'.

I say Baby Boomers can self-actualize their own ass wiping and pill taking in their advanced age.

thunderlips11 says

o see lifetime right-wing Boomers demand Nursing Home regulation,

What is the Medicare reimbursement code for blow jobs?

thunderlips11 says

Showing there is a prime mover cannot be done with pure logic and no evidence from observation

Give an example where that is not true.

thunderlips11 says

The difference between science and philosophy is that science demands evidence first, and creates hypothesis using logic chains.

Nope, global warming would be an example of something that can not be proven by the empirical method, try though you may.thunderlips11 says

This is why Science is superior to Philosophy, and why 3000 years of Philosophy produced little (and when it did it was following the scientific method of observation) and 200 years of Science has changed the world.

The proof is in the pudding.

So then all math should be thrown out. ..thunderlips11 says

What does this mean?

What you are afraid it means

indigenous says

Give an example where that is not true.

Here's a few from Aristotle, darling of the Medievals:

Further, this circular motion is necessarily primary. For the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing. This cannot be said of any straight line: not of an infinite line; for, if it were perfect, it would have a limit and an end: nor of any finite line; for in every case there is something beyond it, since any finite line can be extended.

The Medieval Theologian's worship of Perfect Circles and pedantic love of Greek Logic without criticism or reference to observation was exactly the reason Galileo and others had so much trouble. Why they invented epicycles to 'explain' the apparent retrograde motion of the planets. The heavens are perfect, there must be perfect circles in heavens, all orbits are perfect without eccentricity! The a priori logic of the Great Masters proves it! No such thing as eccentricity in the Heavens!

"...logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians—and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse."
-- H. L. Mencken.

indigenous says

Nope, global warming would be an example of something that can not be proven by the empirical method, try though you may.

Ah, my sophist. Global Warming is a fact. You can debate the portion that is anthropometric and what is natural, but the rise of CO2 and general rise in temps over the past 100 years is a well-proven fact.

And the rats are winning.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

Give an example where that is not true.

Here's

Not an example of cause

thunderlips11 says

You can debate the portion that is anthropometric and what is natural

No shit, the argument is about cause.

Which should start with Occum's Razor not with whatever empircal delusion the mutts can pull out their ass.

thunderlips11 says

The current wave of Anti-Government attitudes is the result of Me-Me-Me Baby Boomers

They were also the first wave of young people to be influenced by the aborning counterculture, a gift from the New Left, with its rejection of romance for "relationships", shacking up instead of marriage and the always ubiquitous drug culture. All three of these which were explained as alternatives 50 years ago are now the mainstream culture with its attendant chaos. We have a monolith of social services agencies serving these people which on the surface could be seen as a benevolence, but is also a society's effort to corral and contain the human destruction that seems so prevalent in every city today. Here are some of the oft-repeated phrases I hear people use in conjunction with these situations: I'm in recovery, we're talking, we're on-again off-again, I'm in a dark place, rehab-relapse.

Is BoomFuck now a spurned ethnicity?

P N Dr Lo R says

They were also the first wave of young people to be influenced by the aborning counterculture, a gift from the New Left, with its rejection of romance for "relationships", shacking up instead of marriage and the always ubiquitous drug culture. All three of these which were explained as alternatives 50 years ago are now the mainstream culture with its attendant chaos. We have a monolith of social services agencies serving these people which on the surface could be seen as a benevolence, but is also a society's effort to corral and contain the human destruction that seems so prevalent in every city today. Here are some of the oft-repeated phrases I hear people use in conjunction with these situations: I'm in recovery, we're talking, we're on-again off-again, I'm in a dark place, rehab-relapse.

This also. Another gift, in the 70s, was the new BB Liberal Arts PhDs decided that taking on the MIC was too hard, so they started all this identitarian bullshit.

I say we form a new kind of "thought police." Whenever we don't like someone's point of view, we can say (or yell) "politically correct, politically correct !!"

Thus informing everyone that such thoughts need to be dismissed, because they are PC bullshit, that the mysterious elitist libruls are trying to brainwash us with.

thunderlips11 says

identitarian bullshit

That's another one I tought of--they were always mulling about "who am I". A friend of mine was always saying he didn't know who he was and I said all you have to do is take out your driver's license and it has your name on it.

thunderlips11 says

Showing there is a prime mover cannot be done with pure logic and no evidence from observation.

Even if there were a prime mover, there is no reason to believe that such a mover would be sentient. The tides don't go in and out based on will or sentient decision making. The cosmos itself, whatever that is, could be the prime mover and still be completely non-sentient, amoral, and oblivious to human existence. Such a prime movers would not be a god by any definition and certainly not the Christian god.

thunderlips11 says

Philosophy assumes much, and then uses a priori logic from there.

And often poorly so since most philosophers couldn't pass a college level math course. Aquinas being one such philosopher.