It is inconsistent to hold that logic is posterior to empirical evidence; to do such entails a contradiction – even to predicate that it is prior requires logical predication; which tacitly implies the priority of logic.
I’m happy to take that risk.
You must show us how our world of experience- the empirical world- is explained by your logic. Why does the universe fit into your classification of the “totality of caused things” and not an “extra-total” cause?
Matter and energy has always existed in this Universe of ours but that does not mean this Universe is the only reality that ever has been. God is the only ‘thing’ or ‘reality’ or ‘energy’ or whatever you want to call Him that is truly infinite and had no beginning. God is the first cause of all that ever has or ever will exist. For all we know God has created many Universes that no longer exist, or exist in other dimensions inaccessible to us, or will create more in the future. Or as some scientists theorize our own Universe may contract until it reaches that infinitely dense point again and the Big Bang happens and… into infinity.
What is a mistake is to invoke arguments that involve regress.
It’s true that we don’t know if God was the first cause of the Big Bang that created our Universe or if God created something else before that which caused it. But it is certain to me that God is the first cause of all matter and energy and time and any other “whatever” that might have been created.
I’m not a philosopher. Can you explain what you mean?
I’ll try…
Why do you think that an accident or an intelligent force are the only two options? There is the third option that dare not speak it’s name on this forum.
Thank you for the explanation.
I don’t see evol****n as a third option. It either started accidentally since everything else is an accident (not) or it is part of the intelligent design for creation on Earth.
This is absurd.
To account for every effect, one must consider the human person as an unique unification of the immaterial spiritual soul and the material body. Human nature is rational/corporeal.I don’t want to be involved in this discussion. I just want to see a debate. I have set the table; i hope people will play.
Conclusion: There is therefore a first cause. This is what we understand to be God.
- For every effect there must be a cause.
- In order to account for every effect there must be a cause that is not an effect.
Please debate this argument.
Why? Why are those the only two options? How do you know?
Why?This is absurd.
Obviously any creative force that is contingent makes up part of the totality of contingent things; which - as a finite total essentailly requires a non-contingent thing to create them.
I suppose it’s because that’s the farthest my imagination will go and the only option that makes any sense to me at all is an intelligent creator. The logic of it convinces me without the need for a scientific or philosophical proof.
All that proves old son, is that you have no imagination and you are ignoring the evidence. As I said earlier, you are sitting with an orange in your hand, swearing blind that logic dictates that it’s an apple.
I’ll accept your criticism when you can show me the “evidence” that God doesn’t exist and it won’t be found in the banned topic because I can use the topic to argue for the existence of God. And lack of evidence of God is not proof.
Can you name a single effect that is uncaused?