RE: The First Cause? Prime Mover Argument
May 8, 2015 at 10:45 am
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2015 at 10:46 am by Alex K.)
(May 8, 2015 at 10:34 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: I agree with Alex and Rob.
If the premise everything must have a cause holds true then there can be no first cause. If you allow the first cause to not have a cause, you demolish your initial premise.
Not to speak for the OP, but I think the premise is that "things seen in the universe" obey it and that therefore must be things unseen and outside of this category. Seems more like special pleading. But - if the argument were really sound, one might conclude that either nothing can exist or that there have to be other things which violate the premise, while the hitherto known things don't - which is taken as an empirical insight I suppose.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
