Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[LostLocke]

First, you cannot have an actual infinite number of things. No such thing.

You keep saying that.
And so far it boils down to, "There is no infinite regression because I said so."

[Neo-Scholastic]

Second, there could always have been one more event in the way distant past and we would never have arrived at today. 

FYI, you need to distinguish between accidental and essential series. In theory, an accidental causal series could have an infinite temporal past, depending on one's theory of time. Only an infinite chain of essential causes is impossible since it requires at least one necessary member. Also, you need to be careful not to adopt Hume's redefinition of efficient causes as sequential events. Prior to Hume an efficient was defined as any agent necessarily present during an event. For example, the baseball is the efficient cause of the broken window; however, the ball hitting the window and the window breaking are simultaneous parts of a single event.

(Don't expect the atheists to understand, or care to make, any of these subtle distinctions, but you should be aware that they are, IMHO, necessary distinctions for the demonstration to work)

[The Grand Nudger]

Not that it would matter.  God does not resolve infinite regress.

[Amarok]

Theist assert their can't be a infinite number of actual things . But they have yet to back it up . They simply resort to long refuted garbage like Hilberts Hotel and other false analogies .

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Yes nonexistence is impossible.
2. No, it has not been proven that the first cause was a supernatural prime mover with a mind called "God."

Because it takes further demonstrations to make that clear. A single demonstration does not a full philosophy make. All the argument shows is that there is something that matches a role or attribute traditionally ascribed to God.

It shows no such thing. It doesn't even do a particularly good job of explaining that nonexistence is impossible and there must be a first cause. And its conclusion that the first cause must be a "prime mover" or agent, or anything with a mind, is just a non-sequitur. Of course there must be an uncaused cause, but the God claim is far more than that. And potentiality is nonsense.

3. All the talk about potentiality is nonsense because actuality is the only thing that is actual and therefore existent.

If you think that then I suggest you go back and look at how Aristotle resolved the dilemma between Parmenides and Heraclitus. We stand on the shoulders of giants and ignore their contributions at out peril.

I disagree that he resolved Parmenides's dilemma. AFAIC the logic Parmenides used in his argument was flawless, and Einstein himself seemed to recognize that long after Aristotle, regardless of whose shoulders he was standing on. You speak as if Aristotle was right about everything, but he got many things wrong, and he even thought flies had four legs.

[Amarok]

Not that it would matter.  God does not resolve infinite regress.

Their is that too . Simply defining  god into the role of necessary will not cut it .

[LostLocke]

Theist assert their can't be a infinite number of actual things . But they have yet to back it up . They simply resort to long refuted garbage like Hilberts Hotel and other false analogies .

Ugh, Hilbert's Hotel. To me, that always comes out sounding like a long winded version of 'What is the sound of one hand clapping?'

[Edwardo Piet]

If you think that then I suggest you go back and look at how Aristotle resolved the dilemma between Parmenides and Heraclitus. We stand on the shoulders of giants and ignore their contributions at out peril.

Standing on shoulders is useful but some are more reliable than others.  These ancients are fine in context.  But I wouldn't trust the view from atop Aquinas' shoulders.

Well all of Aquinas's arguments for God are clearly fallacious failures that have been debunked, over and over, so much so it's getting old.

[Amarok]

Actually i don't see why their must be a first cause . This assumes to much about causes.

---

It's possible to respect giants while acknowledging their limited vantage point . And not becoming bound to them. That was the mistake Medieval theologians made.

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually i don't see why their must be a first cause . This assumes to much about causes.

The only thing we have to assume is that everything has a cause and the universe is finite, and there must be a first cause.

If the universe is infinite then the causes may indeed go on forever.

Either way it doesn't matter, because there's no reason to think that the first cause is God and to say that the first cause must be God is just special pleading.