The First Cause

Originally posted by ahosyney
I agree, if I can't know that GOD exists, then there is no reason for the argument.

Are we done, then?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let us imagine a hypothetical invention that might exist in the future. Would it be included in the domain? For example, do you suppose Aquinas' intention for the domain in question was to include microwave ovens, about which nobody of his era had any sort of knowledge?

Also, do you suppose we have any sort of knowledge about God?

I just want to make it clear. Now in the domain of the first premise, I don't assume any knowladge about GOD.

For your question yes, the Microwave oven will be exluded for Aquinas.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are we done, then?

No,

What I said:

"If I said that I can't know GOD"

But I didn't say that. 🙂,

Read my previous post

Originally posted by ahosyney
No,

What I said:

"If I said that I can't know GOD"

But I didn't say that. 🙂,

Read my previous post

Well, it sounds to me as if you are equivocating, failing to endorse at least one of these propositions:

I may be able to have knowledge about God
I cannot have knowledge about God


Let us try to clarify this in a different manner, since you haven't succeeded in conveying to me just what is included in the domain. If God did exist, would he be included in the domain?

Originally posted by ahosyney


For your question yes, the Microwave oven will be exluded for Aquinas.

Interesting. Let us analyze his argument then. Supposing that his argument is formally valid, couldn't his conclusion then be replaced with:

5) Hence, there must be a first cause, namely the microwave oven

while retaining the argument's validity?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Infinite regress is not a problem posed primarily by theists, but is a problem posed by Nature itself and its natural law.

If we trace phenomena backwards, we delineate a history of cause and effect. How far back do you go? If you have no first cause, then you are stuck with an infinite regress.

Atheists are fond of saying, "there is no reason to t ...[text shortened]... rting point (i.e. the Big Bang).

A self-existent reality has no starting point.

What an abject waste of time, for 2 reasons.

One, infinite regress doesn't bother me in the slightest. Cause and effect are time dependent phenomena and only occur within the universe, and do not necessarily apply to the universe, thus we don't need to worry about infinite regress, which is a mere strawman set up by theists.

Two, you have your own problems within infinite regress to worry about mate. The concept of God as an "unmoved mover" is from Aristotle, only incorporated into the bible later. Just because your sect stole someone elses idea to get around the problem doesn't mean you solved it.

All this has been thrashed out several times. Now, go and write it out an infinite number of times and stop bugging the sensible folk.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Interesting. Let us analyze his argument then. Supposing that his argument is formally valid, couldn't his conclusion then be replaced with:

5) Hence, there must be a first cause, namely the microwave oven

while retaining the argument's validity?

For me, yes, you proved that there could be something called microwave oven, that exists and is the cause of the universe existance. Assuming that this microwave even exists, at the time of Aquinas, but Aquinas has no idea about such a thing.

while retaining the argument's validity?

For me it is still valid. For Aquinas, it might not.

Originally posted by ahosyney
For me, yes, you proved that there could be something called microwave oven, that exists and is the cause of the universe existance. Assuming that this microwave even exists.

Do you think it is true that a microwave oven created the universe?

If not, then you must believe that the conclusion of the revised argument is false. Do you agree?

And that would mean that you must believe that either the argument is invalid or that it relies upon a false premise. Do you agree?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think it is true that a microwave oven created the universe?

If not, then you must believe that the conclusion of the argument is false. Do you agree?

And that would mean that you must believe that either the argument is invalid or that it relies upon a false premise. Do you agree?

Talking about Aquinas argument, I can say some how I agree. It is missing a lot.

It should include a detaild definition for every term. It should be modified. And I think I told you that from the first post.
-------------------

Do you have time to discuss my ideas given your last post?

I mean this question:
Do you think it is true that a microwave oven created the universe?

Originally posted by ahosyney

Do you have time to discuss my ideas given your last post?

I mean this question:
[b]Do you think it is true that a microwave oven created the universe?[/b]

Are you asking me what I'm including in the domain of things referred to by the term "microwave oven"?

Let a microwave oven be defined to be anything that heats food by bombarding it with microwave radiation.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Are you asking me what I'm including in the domain of things referred to by the term "microwave oven"?

Let a microwave oven be defined to be anything that heats food by bombarding it with microwave radiation.

No that is not what I mean, I'm not asking you.

I just say if you agree to continue discussion this question you asked me will be the base.

Is it clear?

Originally posted by ahosyney
No that is not what I mean, I'm not asking you.

I just say if you agree to continue discussion this question you asked me will be the base.

Is it clear?

So be it.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
[b]Do you think it is true that a microwave oven created the universe?

Is logic capable of being devoid of common sense?

Originally posted by whodey
Is logic capable of being devoid of common sense?

It just depends whether your notion of common sense includes the rules of deduction. The more stupid a person you are, the less likely it is that the condition holds, and the more likely you are to find logical inference violating your common sense.