I'll also note that we're on page 19 of a debate (I'm on 40 posts per page, my preferred ratio), which largely consists of Steve's defence of the KCA/Aquinas/Aristotlean "proof" of god, and Steve still hasn't even acknowledged, never mind addressed, the most basic problem with the argument in that if everything needs a creator to exist then you cannot have an uncaused cause. The only logical conclusion of his argument is "it's turtles all the way down" or in this case "gods all the way back, each one more all-powerful than his successor".
That is the only valid conclusion, if you want do describe god as a real being with an actual existence.
That is the only valid conclusion, if you want do describe god as a real being with an actual existence.
Urbs Antiqua Fuit Studiisque Asperrima Belli
Home
Home