Creationism

[Belacqua]

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

This is the Aristotelian/Thomist first cause argument. 

It was around for a long time before Thomas. It was around for a long time before there was Christianity. 

It does not depend on, or address, the Christian version of God.

To say there is a first cause is open to debate. 

That's certainly true. I was hoping you would get around to addressing it at some point.

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

Yes, I've said that several times. The first cause argument only argues for a first cause. To show that this first cause deserves to be called God requires other arguments. 

Not his man, Aquinas. 

I don't understand what you mean by "his man." 

It is perfectly possible to believe in a first cause, per the argument given, and say that this is not the Christian God. 

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?

Thomas made that connection, by adding lots of other arguments. Other people say that the first cause argument is solid, but not the ones adding the Christian God. 

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

In the OP, Eleven, (who has gone silent now) referred to a mistaken version of the first cause argument, which is often cited by people who don't know what they're talking about. I told him that the real argument is different. 

I agree that what creation is and isn't is a valid topic, and would be of interest if anyone wanted to discuss it. 

---

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.

Thomas makes the first cause argument, and then he says at the end "and this is what we call God." That's his name for the first cause. If you'd like to call it something else that would be fine, but it seems you are focussed on associations that Thomas made, and not the argument itself. 

Do all contingent things depend on a non-contingent thing? That's the argument. But it appears you don't want to talk about that. 

Anyway, I'll drop it here. You are talking about anything other than contingency and necessity, which is what the argument addresses.