god makes the pathetic, minscule lives of the upright ape seem so precious.

There's nothing to stop god being a created being itself.  In a timeless existence there is no infinite regress problem.

Of course that's not the defined god of some theistic religions, but a definition does not, unfortunately make a god.

(August 10, 2020 at 10:10 am)Eleven Wrote: The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that...

I'd be more impressed that you had managed to reduce this morally bankrupt abuse of scripture and science to a single flaw if you hadn't so obviously exposed the error in your thinking by putting the word "thought" after "creationist".

---

(August 10, 2020 at 5:22 pm)Belacqua Wrote: No one claims that a first cause argument gets you to the God of the Bible.

Apologists from Kalam to Craig beg to differ.

(August 10, 2020 at 9:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Apologists from Kalam to Craig beg to differ.

Neither the Thomist first cause argument nor the Kalam one does more than prove God as a first cause. 

To get from there to the God of the Bible or of the Koran requires additional steps.

If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

Quote:Neither the Thomist first cause argument nor the Kalam one does more than prove God as a first cause. 

Great now show me an apologist that doesn't use it as such 

Quote:To get from there to the God of the Bible or of the Koran requires additional steps.

Great now show us someone who doesn't use the Kalam as a method for arguing for their particular god 

Quote:If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

Try the fact that every apologist after bringing up the Kalam will then argue for their particular god 

But that's pure coincidence i'm sure 

(August 10, 2020 at 10:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 10, 2020 at 9:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Apologists from Kalam to Craig beg to differ.

Neither the Thomist first cause argument nor the Kalam one does more than prove God as a first cause. 

To get from there to the God of the Bible or of the Koran requires additional steps.

If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

You cannot hurl aspersions at the claims of others when you refuse to reveal yours. Why are you afraid to reveal yours? They revealed theirs honestly and had to deal with the criticisms. 

But you refuse to do so.

Interesting that.

(August 10, 2020 at 10:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 10, 2020 at 9:42 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Apologists from Kalam to Craig beg to differ.

Neither the Thomist first cause argument nor the Kalam one does more than prove God as a first cause. 

To get from there to the God of the Bible or of the Koran requires additional steps.

If you know of anyone claiming that a first cause argument shows, for example, that the Trinity is true or that Jesus is the savior, please post a link or other source.

No, it makes the argument that god could be a first cause. But it contains assumptions, which not all (which includes myself) agree that they are correct.

At best it's a flawed proof.

(August 10, 2020 at 10:10 am)Eleven Wrote: The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that all must have a creator.

Therefore, something must have created god.

But then theists decide via apologetic argumentation that special pleading is in order, thus stating that god always existed.

Eleven you really need to read up more on these topics. If by "creationist thought" what you're talking about are first cause arguments such as the Kalam, they don't argue that everything that exists must have been created. Otherwise it would, of course, be special pleading to nevertheless say that God was not created. But no one is arguing that in the first place.

And first cause arguments are arguments for first cause (whether it's labeled as God or otherwise). To get to a particular god like the God of the Bible, other arguments are used to get there that supposedly complement first cause arguments. Arguments such as the Resurrection argument.

So easy to straw man.

Maybe somebody should type out what the first cause argument actually says.

Here is a thumbnail version of the Aristotelian/Thomist version (not Kalam).

First, the word "cause" is misleading. It isn't used in the way we use it in conversational English. It is the translation of the Greek αἰτία, which might better be said as "explanation."

The various αἰτία of something are all the things that must be the case in order for that thing to be the case. So you ask yourself, what has to be in order that I can be? The answer will include your parents, but also things like the food you eat, and the sunlight that makes the food possible. All those things which had to be the case so that you can exist are your causes.

There is a chain of αἰτία which is essential, not temporal. That is, we're not talking about one event or action in history which started the ball rolling. We're talking about things that may exist simultaneously, but are necessary for the existence of other things. (You can continue to exist even if your parents die, but if the First Cause disappeared, you would disappear too.)

So for example, for the sun to exist you have to have hydrogen atoms. Hydrogen atoms are among the αἰτία of the sun. If the sun blew up, the hydrogen atoms would still exist. But if all the hydrogen atoms disappeared, so would the sun. Thus the atoms are an αἰτία of the sun.

Then you follow the chain. What is necessary for the hydrogen atoms to exist? Among other things, subatomic particles. What is necessary for these to exist? Time and space. What is necessary for time and space to exist? When you get to the end of the chain, this is the First Cause.

It's common to say therefore that the First Cause is existence itself. For anything else to exist, you must have existence. Existence is therefore the end of the essential chain of αἰτία. This is why it is common to say that God is the Ground of Being, or just Being itself.

This should make it clear that nothing about salvation or the Trinity or any other detail of a religion is included in the first cause argument. To show that the First Cause is the Ground of Being, but is also intelligent, good, etc., requires further argument.

Thanks Belaqua.

So quantum weirdness such as Hawking radiation and radioactive decay pretty much show that the Greek αἰτία is 'out dated'?

There are things (Particles) and events (The decay) that happen 'spontaniously' without a previous αἰτία?

Cheers.

Not at work.