Creationism

[brewer]

Thomas believed in the Christian God. He knew that the first cause argument was not sufficient to prove anything other than a first cause. Everything else about the Christian God must be argued with different arguments. 

Suppose a non-Christian argued that there must be one non-contingent thing which is essentially prior to all contingent things, and he calls this essential thing "the thing that's essentially prior." But he hates Christianity and rejects the term "God." Would you accept this man's argument that all contingent things exist in contingency to existence itself?

That's what we're talking about.

Aren't you the one who drug Aquinas into this? (post #24) And now you're back peddling?

To say there is a first cause is open to debate. To say that first cause is god without other evidence makes a flawed argument except within the context of religion. 

Nott his man, Aquinas. If he meant it only indicated "first cause" or only "contingent existence" why did he proceed to first cause ..... god? Or are you saying that he didn't make the god connection?

And this tread started with the title, Creationism. The whole thing is about religion, what Creationism is and is not.

---

You could argue circumstantial ad hom, but circumstantial's are not necessarily fallacious. In this case probably not because he was a member of the church and had an agenda/motivation. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

I said he manufactured an argument for the existence of god. Adding god was not logical, making god the first cause without knowing is an argument from ignorance.

I judge his conclusion of "therefore god" only logical within the context of religion.

So you're not going to address the logical validity of the argument itself.

I all ready did. The logic fails when Aquinas adds god.