(May 9, 2016 at 7:23 am)SteveII Wrote: [quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1270109' dateline='1462790587']
We aren't stuck considering only an efficient cause. It's simply that a suitable material cause hasn't been proposed. That doesn't mean we are hopelessly prevented from investigating the potential of a material explanation to suffice.
Then you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. [bold]There was no nature[/bold]to pull attributes of an uncaused cause from.I keep hearing this claim about we can postulate a different set of assumptions or attributes. Go ahead, postulate a different set of attributes that are only drawn from what metaphysical conclusion of the KCA: an uncaused cause.
:: bold mine::
What exactly does this mean? Do you have evidence to back up the bold assertion that there "was no nature?"
This is why theists tend to shy away from offering specifics on the form of their God. Once they start drawing in the darker lines of definition, the picture which emerges reveals its own absurdity.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
