Creationism

[awty]

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion?

And then ironically it takes me returning to create these kinds of threads where discussion on particular subjects is increased.



Maybe I'm a peculiar type of anti-theist, but I prefer religious type discussions over what's your favorite color this week type poppycock.

Ah...that explains your habit of only posting your intellectual musings and not something like some guy you think is hot or the "oh so deep" current TV series you are watching. And let's not forget the next time you start a thread because you are all hot and bothered over being able to change your forum name again - that's some real "deepity" there.

Get over yourself.

[Paraselene]

Awww, I have a fan following.

[GrandizerII]

Have you noticed that you don't participate in any threads that are not about philosophy or religion?

And then ironically it takes me returning to create these kinds of threads where discussion on particular subjects is increased.



Maybe I'm a peculiar type of anti-theist, but I prefer religious type discussions over what's your favorite color this week type poppycock.

You call what you do a discussion? You have a brilliant mind, but you rarely give me a chance to see it.

[Paraselene]

Have as much faith in my brilliant mind as you do your god.

[GrandizerII]

Have as much faith in my brilliant mind as you do your god.

0 faith?

[brewer]

Have as much faith in my brilliant mind as you do your god.

Scooter/diesel, nuff said?

[downbeatplumb]

So did something start the universe. I don't know. It may have been part of an eternity of past causes and effects.
BUT what I can say is that the chances of it being done on purpose by a sentient being is as close to zero as makes no difference.

The Thomist first cause argument isn't about the universe having a start. I don't know why you'd bring that up in this context.

It kinda is. The "first cause argument" by theists places god, a sentient being as the first cause. As everything is pretty much known up to the moment of the big bang, the start of the universe then my read is that it is exactly abut the universe having a start.

What is your take?

[Belacqua]

The Thomist first cause argument isn't about the universe having a start. I don't know why you'd bring that up in this context.

It kinda is. The "first cause argument" by theists places god, a sentient being as the first cause. As everything is pretty much known up to the moment of the big bang, the start of the universe then my read is that it is exactly abut the universe having a start.

What is your take?

Aristotle thought the world was eternal, with no beginning.

Thomas thought the beginning point could not be proved through logical argument. He never made an argument about it.

He pointedly rejects arguments about a temporal starting point for the universe.

The Aristotelian/Thomist first cause argument is not about a temporal starting point. 

Bringing up the Big Bang is irrelevant to the argument.

This has been explained at least twice on this thread.

[GrandizerII]

Kalam's first cause is temporal first cause (as you go backwards in time, eventually you get to that first cause).

Aristotelian/Thomistic is an atemporal type of first cause. Assume time is frozen, if you go "downwards" (for lack of a better term), eventually you get to that first cause.

Kalam: everything that begins to exist is caused.

Aquinas: everything that requires cause is caused

I find this Wiki page to be overall fair because it does reflect current status of discussion on Aquinas' Ways. Unlike with the Kalam, atheists have yet to come up with something strong against these arguments. This doesn't mean there aren't reasons to reject them, of course, but effective counters are nevertheless currently lacking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

[brewer]

Effective counters are not necessary for abstractions.