Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50
I should have spent more on one aspect in reply. First "brought" implies causality or something outside doing the bringing. I think you can see the problem with this is identical to the cause problem.

Second, if you are emphasizing that everything for everything that exists there must be a time when it didn't exist, then we're back at the "eternal = outside time" point where "time" and "when" and "before" etc. are meaningless.

All of this fits together. In order to explain why anything exists, X must be true; if X is not true, nothing exists.

Acquinas developed four variations of his basic argument and they've lasted as a standard to test against. They're pretty tight.

648 posted on 01/21/2011 6:49:40 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies ]


To: D-fendr; James C. Bennett
Acquinas developed four variations of his basic argument and they've lasted as a standard to test against. They're pretty tight.

His arguments are a stop-gap answer to infinite regress.

All of this fits together. In order to explain why anything exists, X must be true; if X is not true, nothing exists.

This is the problem with Aquinases "tight" argument. We know we exist, but we don;t know that the Uncaused cause does. If we had to be brought into existence by an UNcaused cause, then that cause does not exist in the sense of the word. Existence applies only to the "created" or caused. It basically comes donw to UNcaused = NONexistent; caused = existent.

659 posted on 01/21/2011 7:47:24 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson