The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[Belacqua]

Yes, I am aware of Aristotle's different notions of cause, such as formal, efficient, etc. I just think they are poor categories and not helpful for analysis.

It's odd, in that case, that you were using "cause" in a very different sense earlier in this thread. 

Why do you think that Aristotle's αἰτία are poor categories?

[GrandizerII]

If God just IS existence, then that's not anywhere close to the God that most Christians believe in. I don't even think Aquinas saw God that way either.

Christians believe in God as First Cause. As has been pointed out, showing that the First Cause is also good, conscious, etc., is not part of the First Cause argument. You need additional arguments for that.

Lots of hurdles, more like it. It's been very difficult for Christians to make any semblance of a successful logical leap from a first cause that could easily be in line with naturalism to a supernatural entity that is anything like the God that they believe in. The way you've been describing a first cause, it doesn't seem clear to me at all that the First Cause argument then is an argument for some God ... or even a compelling part of an argument for God (because even many atheists can accept that such a first cause, as you describe it, is logical).

[LadyForCamus]

I’m still waiting for someone to explain, using positive descriptors, what the supernatural actually is.

[Bucky Ball]

But it's a trick. It's not an argument for "first" anything. It's an argument for a cause, not "first" cause.
Proximate cause .... ie "nearest cause", not first cause.
An omnipotent deity (in their world) could create any number of levels of universe makers, and one of them could be (in their logic) the cause of the universe.
In fact, this same deity could have created robotic universe creators who are sitting somewhere playing "evil universe" .... how many children can we give cancer to, today ?

The First Cause argument is specifically an argument that one cause has to be first.

Of course there are nutty or insincere people who will make up whatever they feel like. And not just among the religious. 

There are also sincere people who work on what they think is good logic. You can disagree with the conclusions of their argument, but it's not fair to say they're just being tricky.

No. The argument (sneaks) in "first". They jump (without justification in any way) from "all things need a cause" to the PRESUMPTION, hoping you will not catch it, that they can just pop over to "first". There is no foundation laid in the argument for "first". It is NOT what you claim it is. That's simply because you bought the hype. It is NOT that one cause HAS to be first. It's simply that the all things need a cause. They do not ever justify or lay a foundation for "first". It is a totally faulty argument, and they use it, hoping you will not notice there is no foundation laid for it, ... as it stands. It's totally "tricky" ..... also "tricky because normally it's used these days by fundamentalists with reference to the Big Bang. The Big Bang Theory in no way says it's a "beginning". Yes. It's DISHONEST, and very tricky.

[Belacqua]

(because even many atheists can accept that such a first cause, as you describe it, is logical).

Thank you, this makes me happy. 

As you say, the additional arguments necessary to get to the Christian God aren't often explained to us. Neither Christians nor atheists are much aware of these any more. 

We also have to be careful when we talk about "what Christians believe." Ken Ham and the pope believe such different things that they are practically different religions. 

I wish that someone who had studied these things seriously were posting here. For me to get the books and read them with the necessary attention takes a lot of effort, and I have other things going on. It's just that these are not easy arguments, and both Christians and the people who oppose them are seldom willing to do the work.

---

Yes. It's DISHONEST, and very tricky.

To say that the people who have agreed with this argument are dishonest, you would have to know the private thoughts of thousands and thousand of people, most of whom are now dead. 

I don't believe you can do that. 

They may well have been wrong, but I don't think we're justified in declaring them dishonest or tricky. 

If you have arguments for why you disagree, rather than just pronouncements about your conclusions, I'll read them.

[Amarok]

Their is nothing to take seriously and yes most apologists are dishonest

[Bucky Ball]

(because even many atheists can accept that such a first cause, as you describe it, is logical).

Thank you, this makes me happy. 

As you say, the additional arguments necessary to get to the Christian God aren't often explained to us. Neither Christians nor atheists are much aware of these any more. 

We also have to be careful when we talk about "what Christians believe." Ken Ham and the pope believe such different things that they are practically different religions. 

I wish that someone who had studied these things seriously were posting here. For me to get the books and read them with the necessary attention takes a lot of effort, and I have other things going on. It's just that these are not easy arguments, and both Christians and the people who oppose them are seldom willing to do the work.

---

Yes. It's DISHONEST, and very tricky.

To say that the people who have agreed with this argument are dishonest, you would have to know the private thoughts of thousands and thousand of people, most of whom are now dead. 

I don't believe you can do that. 

They may well have been wrong, but I don't think we're justified in declaring them dishonest or tricky. 

If you have arguments for why you disagree, rather than just pronouncements about your conclusions, I'll read them.

I already gave them. You just don't like them. They are perfectly obvious, and they are true, whether you agree or not. There is NOTHING about "First Cause" in the argument. It's simply "cause". You are not the "master philosopher overseer" here, despite your arrogant patronizing posts. I do not need anything approved or agreed-to by you. I don't give a shit what you read or don't read. Stop patronizing me. Fuckwad.

[Belacqua]

There is NOTHING about "First Cause" in the argument. It's simply "cause". 

If we use the vocabulary that LadyforCamus suggests, I think it's clear why there has to be a first in the chain of essential causes. 

She suggests that the brute fact that things is exist is where we begin. I think that's a reasonable way to formulate the argument. 

Now, could there be anything prior to the brute fact that things exist? Is there something that could provide a foundation to the brute fact that things exist? I don't think so, because that thing would have to exist. So we'd have an existing thing resting as the foundation that things exist. And I don't think that makes sense. To make this work, you'd have to posit some kind of supernatural non-existent thing, and nobody here is fond of supernatural explanations. 

So I think it makes sense to talk about a first cause, in this sense.

[The Valkyrie]

Thank you, this makes me happy. 

As you say, the additional arguments necessary to get to the Christian God aren't often explained to us. Neither Christians nor atheists are much aware of these any more. 

We also have to be careful when we talk about "what Christians believe." Ken Ham and the pope believe such different things that they are practically different religions. 

I wish that someone who had studied these things seriously were posting here. For me to get the books and read them with the necessary attention takes a lot of effort, and I have other things going on. It's just that these are not easy arguments, and both Christians and the people who oppose them are seldom willing to do the work.

---

To say that the people who have agreed with this argument are dishonest, you would have to know the private thoughts of thousands and thousand of people, most of whom are now dead. 

I don't believe you can do that. 

They may well have been wrong, but I don't think we're justified in declaring them dishonest or tricky. 

If you have arguments for why you disagree, rather than just pronouncements about your conclusions, I'll read them.

I already gave them. You just don't like them. They are perfectly obvious, and they are true, whether you agree or not. There is NOTHING about "First Cause" in the argument. It's simply "cause". You are not the "master philosopher overseer" here, despite your arrogant patronizing posts. I do not need anything approved or agreed-to by you. I don't give a shit what you read or don't read. Stop patronizing me. Fuckwad.

But I haven’t said anything!

[Amarok]

If we use the vocabulary that LadyforCamus suggests, I think it's clear why there has to be a first in the chain of essential causes. 

She suggests that the brute fact that things is exist is where we begin. I think that's a reasonable way to formulate the argument. 

1.Nope 
2.This fact does not lead to a first cause