RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 2, 2016 at 12:12 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2016 at 12:14 am by Mystic.)
(April 2, 2016 at 12:00 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: The First Cause argument is not good, it is not new, and you have not improved on it. It still has the exact same problems it's always had.
Honestly it's a matter of perspective. I personally find the first argument doesn't prove "God", but it does prove a Creator or a god. Just not the Capital g, God.
I say this because for example, there is good arguments that time is finite.
For example,
If every point of time began, then no point of time didn't begin, hence all points of time began. If all points of time began, the whole of time began. If whole of time began, it needs a cause.
Now either the universe existed in a timeless state and moved into a time one by a cause it's own nature, or it was caused. I don't think a timeless universe can cause a change into a time one because that would require being in time. That is why it makes sense to be a timeless Creator created the universe in which time did not and still doesn't apply to it. It doesn't make sense to me for this to be material agency. That is to say just as I cannot imagine a penny creating time, the same is of any material existence.
Of course that thing that created time sees real time, but that is different then it being changed.
This doesn't prove "God" but seems to point to a timeless creator.
Now I can argue these properties and why I think a timeless willing creator is a better explanation or the only possible explanation. The cosmological argument however is useful in that in points to the nature of a first uncaused caused (which has to be argued later if it can be the universe or must be something else).