(August 12, 2020 at 10:29 pm)Belacqua Wrote: 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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
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.
It should not make reference to any god, christian or not. That's the whole point.
Bold: And there is the problem. Who are the "he/we" referred to? He is religious/christian/catholic and he calls the first cause God. A god that had previously been defined by his religion prior to him championing first cause argument. The god baggage pre-existed. Stop being intentionally naive.
I've already posted a link to the arguments against first cause. Talking about contingency and necessity is a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. You're right, I won't indulge in your philosophical mental masturbation that accomplishes nothing.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
