C'mon, Devans.
Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?" — Frank Apisa
I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa
No you go by the axioms used - do you believe the axioms? If you believe the axioms and the logic is sound... In the case of the 5 ways, it is mainly about causality.
I believe it because its based on causality not because it deduces the existence of God. — Devans99
Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling
I agree with the criticism brought up by both Christoffer and Frank about the logical leap, or trivial semantics, from a first cause to God. It is not the first time that I heard that criticism. I first read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy about ten years ago. — S
I have also criticised your argument regarding the ruling out of an infinite regress, as you well know. — S
Aristotle was incompetent. — whollyrolling
We can deduce that the first cause is timeless. — Devans99
And some other attributes such as intelligence and benevolence are probable. — Devans99
Being extra-dimensional or non-material is likely too — Devans99
The simplest arguments are the best. It has stood the test of time (apart from the 4th argument). — Devans99
I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa
"We can deduce that the first cause is timeless.
— Devans99
How? Without scientific data, we cannot deduce anything at all. — Christoffer
I explained my pool table analogy for a regress... if you won't accept that, I'm not sure there is anything that will convince you. — Devans99
But we know that infinity has no start. So there is no starting event. And the starting event causes the next event and so on and so forth. Without the start there is nothing. This is why I say I think you believe in magic - an infinite regress is just that magic - it would be a conjuring trick if it existed in reality. — Devans99
Is that a copy and paste? I've already addressed this. Your first two sentences go without saying, and by your first sentence, you jump straight into a fallacious begging the question by assuming a first cause. That's why you're not being reasonable. — S
All explained here: — Devans99
There is no way for anything to exist without a timeless first cause — Devans99
time just forms an infinite regress going back forever - which is impossible - you have to have a timeless first cause to kick everything off. — Devans99
The universe is fine-tuned for life. — Devans99
This seems to requires intelligence. Intelligence beings are benevolent. I have a 2nd argument for benevolence too. — Devans99
In order to escape the blast from the Big Bang, the first cause has to be non-material or extra dimensional. — Devans99
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.