RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 19, 2015 at 4:43 pm
(This post was last modified: September 19, 2015 at 4:44 pm by Rational AKD.)
(July 22, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Dystopia Wrote: 1 - Everything that exists has or needs a causeI would say this is simply a bad version of the argument... but it reeks terribly of editing. why does the first premise state 'everything that exists has a cause' while the second premise says 'the universe began to exist'? why would you need to word it that way in light of the first premise? the wording of the premises are inconsistent... which can only lead me to believe you edited the first premise to make it more objectionable. i'm sure you won't admit to doing that since that would indeed be very dishonest of you... but i'll leave it for everyone else to decide why your premise wordings are inconsistent.
2 - The universe began to exist
3 - Therefore, the universe needs a cause
the actual wording of premise 1 of the KCA should be 'everything that begins to exist has a cause.' so there's really no special pleading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
-Galileo
-Galileo