RE: Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?
March 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
(March 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 16, 2017 at 11:27 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The argument in a better form, states that everything that begins to exist, has a cause...the argument does not say that everything requires a cause; only that which begins to exist.
That's true enough, but that formulation at least appears to beg the question. The qualifier "begins to exist" already implies something that didn't begin to exist, which is the conclusion of the argument, i.e. there must be something that did not begin to exist. Also it doesn't establish that the thing that didn't begin to exist has any causal power. I'm not saying those are fatal flaws, but it is enough ambiguity to justifies skepticism. Personally, I think the 1W of Aquinas avoids both these problems since it relies on an already established continuum between potential and actual existence - taken from Aristotle's Metaphysics Zeta. I suppose the notion of "beginning to exist" could be derived from Aristotle although I haven't looked into that possibility.
While they may be related in the scope of investigation, I think that these two arguments are answering different questions. The KCA certainly allows for, but doesn't come to the conclusion, that the cause of the universe is the prime mover of Aquinas's arguments. I don't know if I have heard of an argument that does. And likewise, I think that the KCA addresses things which the 1W does not. The Kalam and it's extended arguments infer certain attributes which do match the description of one who has claimed to be the cause of the universe. Where as I see the 1W as arguing against an infinite regress in the causal chain.
As to those who question causal sufficiency... I am amazed that people who believe in science actually question this. I don't know if it is considered properly basic, or if there are arguments for it. But I have never felt the need to question it, or seen any make the case that I should. And without reason, I don't take those who do (usually only in special circumstances; I might add) very seriously.
