The Best Logique Evidence of God Existence

[polymath257]

Yes, I am aware of Aristotle's different notions of cause, such as formal, efficient, etc. I just think they are poor categories and not helpful for analysis.

It's odd, in that case, that you were using "cause" in a very different sense earlier in this thread. 

Why do you think that Aristotle's αἰτία are poor categories?

Because they are ultimately not informative or cause confusion. Formal cause is really the shape. Material cause is the composition. Effective cause is the cause. And ultimate cause only makes sense if there is an active intelligence.

The problem is an outdated metaphysics. Which, to be fair, I expect from writings that are 2300 years old.

---

There is NOTHING about "First Cause" in the argument. It's simply "cause". 

If we use the vocabulary that LadyforCamus suggests, I think it's clear why there has to be a first in the chain of essential causes. 

She suggests that the brute fact that things is exist is where we begin. I think that's a reasonable way to formulate the argument. 

Now, could there be anything prior to the brute fact that things exist? Is there something that could provide a foundation to the brute fact that things exist? I don't think so, because that thing would have to exist. So we'd have an existing thing resting as the foundation that things exist. And I don't think that makes sense. To make this work, you'd have to posit some kind of supernatural non-existent thing, and nobody here is fond of supernatural explanations. 

So I think it makes sense to talk about a first cause, in this sense.

So 'existence' is the 'cause' of existence.

Now, *that's* convincing........