Replies

. The concepts of “chain of causality” and “primary cause” are not “wacky ideas,”

No, your solution for primary cause is only one of many wacky ideas, no more special than the others.

Again, as with the case of “existence,” an atheist, to logically win his case, must try to establish that something other than God was, or could have been, the primary cause of creation.

Atheists just get to say "we don't know." They also get to say that your god solution for primary cause doesn't make any sense, since you created attributes excluding the god from the need of a primary cause himself. It is a solution fabricated out of thin-air to address a problem with no evidence showing that it is actually the solution.

Atheists often lack the hubris of the religious, and can actually say "we don't know." You guys have a need to have all the answers.

No, your solution for primary cause is only one of many wacky ideas, no more special than the others.

I’m sorry, but your response is insufficiently detailed from me to know to what “solution” you are referring. You will have to elaborate.

Atheists just get to say "we don't know."

If you say you “don’t know” then you are not an atheist but an agnostic.

They [atheists] also get to say that your god solution for primary cause doesn't make any sense, since you created attributes excluding the god from the need of a primary cause himself.

In my arguments on this thread, I have created no attributes for “God as a primary cause” other than those demanded logically. Please note my statement (following) from post 120:

By the rules of logic, a creator exists before a creation and is, therefore, not bound the nature or limitations of his creation. Therefore, by logic, the Creator of nature (space-time), i.e., God, is not bound by the space-time limits of the universe, i.e., his creation. In other words, he exists outside of the limits of space-time and does not, therefore, logically require a primary cause.

Please cite, if you can, what “attributes” that you think I have “created” for my solution that do not follow logically from the fact that a creator is independent of his creation.

It is a solution[God] fabricated out of thin-air to address a problem with no evidence showing that it is actually the solution.

It is no more a “solution fabricated out of thin air” than is its counter-solution, “there is no god.” Additionally, the “God” solution has as much, or more, evidence supporting it as its counter-solution, “there is no god.”

I note that you have not taken exception to the two positions that establish existence and creation. May I assume from this absence of counter, that you concede the points?

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Whether God Exists?