(April 27, 2013 at 1:51 am)whateverist Wrote:(April 26, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tex Wrote: God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.
Thanks but neither of those mean anything to me. Both are just fancy sounding hypotheticals.
I know they don't mean anything to you. You're an atheist. Why would the the definition mean anything more than the word "God" itself?
(April 27, 2013 at 3:07 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:(April 26, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Tex Wrote: God: First Causer, Non-Contingent Being.
In the very real possibility that the first cause was found out to be natural, what then?
I would bet that you would find another gap to fit your god in.
The first cause can't be physical (ancients use "natural" in a different sense). Philosophers have known this for 2350 years. Starting with Plato, then Aristotle, continuing to Avicenna and Aquinas, and further to Descartes (debatable) and Kant. Even closer to modern day, Heidegger believed a god was first causer(Being and Time).
If the first cause were physical, it would need something to cause it's existence, thus making that causer the first causer (This is the gap that is never air tight according to Gearbreak). This goes forever unless the first causer is Existence itself. Existence itself is obviously more than a physical body.
The first cause must be a being because the Existence is the only thing non-contingent and there are other things. That means the other things are chosen to exist. Because of the will, Existence shows itself as a being.
The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.