RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 20, 2015 at 1:35 pm
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2015 at 1:39 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
(September 20, 2015 at 11:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...your undemonstrated but shrilly asserted god claims with not having a consistent philosophy.Shrill? That's quite hyperbolic in the current thread.
(September 20, 2015 at 11:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: An effective view of the world doesn't get hung up over fiat claims...I agree. That is why I avoid them.
(September 20, 2015 at 11:22 am)Esquilax Wrote: ... flatly asserted ideas like "atheism is nihilism," or Kalam,..
I publicly retracted the blanket statement that atheism is nihilism. You were there. To bring it up is unfair. Since then I have been careful to quality atheistic positions like physical monism and ontological naturalism.
Second, I never defended the Kalam argument. It is not well formulated. I do support the 'five ways' of Aquinas, which are different. You should know. You claimed they were trivially easy to refute. You said you would write a blog post demonstrating such. I speculated that they would do no such thing. You accused me of putting words in your mouth. I invited you to share your completed blog posts with everyone and promised to publicly apologize if your arguments did not match my speculations. You have not yet done so.
My guess is that refuting Aquinas is not as trivially easy as you asserted by fiat.