RE: Dear Resident Theists
August 18, 2015 at 9:13 am
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2015 at 9:17 am by Longhorn.)
(August 18, 2015 at 8:39 am)Randy Carson Wrote: 1. First Cause.
Peter Kreeft says, "The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is. [Source]
Since the "first cause" is defined as God, and ALL monotheists worship the one Creator, the rest of this is somewhat superfluous. But we can move on to
Woah woah woah. Hold the phone mate.
The first cause is in no way defined as god. The first cause is the creator of the universe immune to infinite regress. That's as much as you can get from the cosmological argument.
Why does it need to be even conscious?
Why is it impossible for the universe to be created by something that wasn't?
This is one of the fundamental flaws with using Kalam for the existence of god. In this argument you define god as not having a beginning, when anywhere else this is neither his only nor most identifying characteristic. Kalam only supports something not needing a cause that triggers the beginning of the universe. Calling it god is a non sequitur, it does not follow.
You establish something as the creator, and then slap a 'and we can call that creator god' at the end. Yes, we can call that many things and it COULD be many things, but why is it necessarily even a deity, let alone your particular one?