[kosta50]

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.

[D-fendr]

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

In one aspect. In another it is an answer to how anything can exist in the cause and effect universe we observe.

Existence applies only to the "created" or caused. It basically comes donw to UNcaused = NONexistent; caused = existent.

IF this is true, how can anything exist?

[D-fendr]

Sorry, my last question was incompletely stated. S/B:

Existence applies only to the "created" or caused. It basically comes donw to UNcaused = NONexistent; caused = existent.

IF this is true, how can anything exist - without an uncaused first cause?