Where did life begin? (Merged)

[Septic]

No. It's very much based in logic, despite whether you're able or willing to recognize the logic.

So... The universe had a beginning, making it an effect. All effects must have a sufficient cause, therefore the universe must have had a sufficient cause.

That cause must be external to the universe and not bound by the universe, so it is outside of both matter and space.

Outside of--and unbound by--time, it is therefore not subject to cause and effect, and is eternal.

So, if that cause is God, God would be eternal and uncaused.

You're right, your rationale for justification of the exception to cause and effect is completely logical. It can't possibly be special pleading because the "cause" is not bound by natural law.....aka magic.

Let me ask this differently, is there a justification for the exception to the cause and effect "rule" that you can defend that doesn't involve shoe horning the conclusion before the syllogism is formed?

 

[Orange_Crush]

You're right, your rationale for justification of the exception to cause and effect is completely logical. It can't possibly be special pleading because the "cause" is not bound by natural law.....aka magic.

Let me ask this differently, is there a justification for the exception to the cause and effect "rule" that you can defend that doesn't involve shoe horning the conclusion before the syllogism is formed?

As mentioned, the existence of a first, uncaused cause, is by definition in the logic of the ex nihilo logic. It isn't shoehorned.

And, your desperation is palpable in such childish antics as equating metaphysical logical references to the simplicity of "magic". You've jumped the shark. Stop now and lick your wounds.

As such, you've proven once again that time spent on you is invariably wasted. Have a nice evening.

 

[Septic]

It's been my observation that when people refuse to deal honestly with an argument, and brush it aside with phrases such as "word salad", "dressed up", "logical gymnastics"... Well, you haven't really had much of a debate, have you?

:hi:

Your argument to the fallacy hinges on a belief on the supernatural. It's a bit laughable that you continue to condescend when positing magic as a honest justification.

 

[Septic]

As mentioned, the existence of a first, uncaused cause, is by definition in the logic of the ex nihilo logic. It isn't shoehorned.

And, your desperation is palpable in such childish antics as equating metaphysical logical references to the simplicity of "magic". You've jumped the shark. Stop now and lick your wounds.

As such, you've proven once again that time spent on you is invariably wasted. Have a nice evening.

Desperation? Heh, you're projecting.

I've still yet to receive a logical justification for a "cause" that wasn't rooted in an assumption of "supernatural" forces. That's not a logical exception, it's a logical turd. I don't care how much sugar you pour on it, I'm not biting.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Desperation? Heh, you're projecting.

I've still yet to receive a logical justification for a "cause" that wasn't rooted in an assumption of "supernatural" forces. That's not a logical exception, it's a logical turd. I don't care how much sugar you pour on it, I'm not biting.

I'm not sure if you're just trying to wave your hands and distract from the fact that you've been proven wrong, or if you're just seriously this dense. But, whatever.

It's sad and a bit funny, all at the same time, that you jumped into a metaphysical discussion, ignorantly commented on a metaphysical argument, and then got your panties twisted because that metaphysical argument was... well... metaphysical.

lolol

 

[rjd970]

No. It's very much based in logic, despite whether you're able or willing to recognize the logic.

You took issue with the argument ex nihilo, claiming that it makes special pleading for God--i.e grants God an exception to the logic that is applied to the universe. However, the argument ex nihilo demands, by definition, some construct such as God that would be the uncaused cause. Ex Nihilo nihil fit. From nothing, nothing comes. i.e. If something exists, then some uncaused something by definition had to exist. It's built into the logic. It is not a special pleading.

The logic of the ex nihilo argument is sound and rooted in the most basic laws of logic that we have. As a matter of fact, without the laws of causation, rationality and logic would cease to exist.

The basis of such laws, and the ex nihilo argument, is that every effect must have a sufficient cause.

That's the most basic. Ripples in a pond were caused by something. And a tsunami wasn't caused by a frog jumping into the ocean.

Now, if the universe is an effect (if it had a beginning), then the universe must, by the laws of causation, have a sufficient cause.

All indications are that the universe had a beginning. Science has pointed us to the singularity of the beginning of the universe. Logic tells us that an infinite regression of moments is a logical impossibility.

Science goes further to tie time and matter together inseparably. It shows that when the universe began, time began as well.

In case it's not obvious, the laws of causation that the ex nihilo argument are based on, are dependent on the existence of time, for the description and observation of causes/effects are at base a description of change over time. An effect comes after a cause, by definition.

So... The universe had a beginning, making it an effect. All effects must have a sufficient cause, therefore the universe must have had a sufficient cause.

That cause must be external to the universe and not bound by the universe, so it is outside of both matter and space.

Outside of--and unbound by--time, it is therefore not subject to cause and effect, and is eternal.

So, if that cause is God, God would be eternal and uncaused.

As I tried to point out earlier, and you were either unable or unwilling to grasp, you are making a classification fallacy.

And as I mentioned, all you have to do is change its class/type of the universe and it will have the same insulation of the ex nihilo argument that God would.

It is not special pleading. Now, it's up to you to either grasp that, or not. Whether you do has no effect on the veracity of the argument.

This whole line of thinking and roundabout justification still hinges on applying the cause effect law of this universe to something outside of it. The universe is the effect, the unmoved mover is the cause. How can the unmoved mover be the cause, yet not be the effect of some other cause? Either the rule applies on the regression or it doesn’t. As soon as you say supernatural then using natural explanations is futile.

I’m fine with you saying there is something outside of this universe not bound by its rules. My problem lies with applying this universes rules to explain it, and doing it by breaking this universes rules.

It goes back to the assumption the cause of this universe must be outside of it. Why? There are a host of other options. It’s also telling that you use evidence presented by scientific inquiry and logic (all evidence points to a beginning, time and matter are linked, etc) yet summarily dismiss that logic (supernatural) when it reaches a point where it fits what you want to believe.

Believe what you want. Fine. But just call it supernatural and stop with the logic, regression, etc rules of this natural universe to paint a face on it.

 

[JHuntVols]

That's not an answer. Which version of the argument? There are many.

The one outlined by Aquinas, which is the most notable and famous version of the first cause argument. Regardless, my prior comment was not meant to be taken as an insult. Asking that question in response to any version of the first cause argument is literally asking the same question that the argument provides the answer for.

The question was how do you reason down to a specific God from this argument. These arguments start becoming more and more suspect when specific traits are attributed to the non-contingent being.

Aquinas did not think of God as a "being"; he is not meant to be thought of as merely an instance of a particular form. Again, God is simply being itself. He is simply existence itself. Take note of these analogous understanding of his nature as it also answers the other argument about special pleading in this thread. That isn't to say other explanations for God are not vulnerable to the criticisms you have both explicitly said and its implications. I would agree with your criticisms in so far as the conception of God found in most protestant theologies is your target.

As I said earlier, deducing fully the God of Christianity does involve assuming some stories of divine revelation, however you can deduce from doctrines such as divine simplicity, divine conservation, the immortality of the soul, etc. certain conclusions that describe only the God of Christianity. Edward Feser gives us such a deduction below.

Consider that for at least some classical theists, philosophical arguments alone can tell us not only that there is a God, but also that human beings have immaterial and immortal souls. For Thomists, they tell us further that the soul is related to the body as form is to matter, so that though the soul survives the death of the body, the human person does not, and can come to life again only if soul and body are reunited; that the soul cannot arise out of the material processes that suffice for the generation of lower animals but must be specially created by God with each new human being; and that our natural end is God Himself, so that we cannot be happy apart from Him. Now, that there will indeed be a resurrection of the dead, as well as the details of the Christian account of salvation, are further facts that cannot be known apart from divine revelation. But what (many) classical theists regard as knowable through reason alone and apart from specifically Christian theology already suffices to show that God has a very special interest in man indeed – so much so that He specially creates each individual human soul for a natural end that involves knowing Him everlastingly, in a way that requires a further divine intervention in the form of a resurrection if it is perfectly going to be fulfilled. It can hardly be that surprising, then, that the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob turn out to be the same.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This whole line of thinking and roundabout justification still hinges on applying the cause effect law of this universe to something outside of it. The universe is the effect, the unmoved mover is the cause. How can the unmoved mover be the cause, yet not be the effect of some other cause? Either the rule applies on the regression or it doesn’t. As soon as you say supernatural then using natural explanations is futile.

The answer to that was in the quote you quoted.

I’m fine with you saying there is something outside of this universe not bound by its rules. My problem lies with applying this universes rules to explain it, and doing it by breaking this universes rules.

I'm not really too worried about what you're fine with or not fine with, to be frank. If you want to dissect and disprove the logic, go for it. If not, don't. But complaining about your preferences is lazy and a bit useless.

It goes back to the assumption the cause of this universe must be outside of it. Why? There are a host of other options. It’s also telling that you use evidence presented by scientific inquiry and logic (all evidence points to a beginning, time and matter are linked, etc) yet summarily dismiss that logic (supernatural) when it reaches a point where it fits what you want to believe.

I did not summarily dismiss that logic. I contextualized it and listed where it would break down. If you want to make the argument that cause/effect is in effect when time is not, then do so. Otherwise, you're just complaining about preferences again.

Believe what you want. Fine. But just call it supernatural and stop with the logic, regression, etc rules of this natural universe to paint a face on it.

I see we have someone else that jumps into metaphysical discussions just to proclaim they don't like metaphysical discussions. lol

 

[rjd970]

The answer to that was in the quote you quoted.



I'm not really too worried about what you're fine with or not fine with, to be frank. If you want to dissect and disprove the logic, go for it. If not, don't. But complaining about your preferences is lazy and a bit useless.



I did not summarily dismiss that logic. I contextualized it and listed where it would break down. If you want to make the argument that cause/effect is in effect when time is not, then do so. Otherwise, you're just complaining about preferences again.



I see we have someone else that jumps into metaphysical discussions just to proclaim they don't like metaphysical discussions. lol

Negative, I don’t like physical discussions with metaphysical littered in where you see fit. You keep calling this a metaphysical discussion, yet you are consistently interjecting physical phenomenon and “lol” when we question your “metaphysical discussion”. Smh.

What’s wrong with this statement:

Gravity is the result of metaphysical phenomenon.


Sure we have physical theories. Sure it doesn’t need metaphysical explanation. But doing what your doing, you should have no issue with it. After all, how do we know gravity doesn’t exist outside of this universe?

Why even utilize the physical logic of this universe when you arbitrarily stop it as you see fit?

Astrology, alchemy, Elvis alive...all do this. Call it metaphysical all you want, but it overtly intrudes into the physical universe and you are all too eager to do it.

 

[JHuntVols]

This whole line of thinking and roundabout justification still hinges on applying the cause effect law of this universe to something outside of it. The universe is the effect, the unmoved mover is the cause. How can the unmoved mover be the cause, yet not be the effect of some other cause? Either the rule applies on the regression or it doesn’t. As soon as you say supernatural then using natural explanations is futile.

I’m fine with you saying there is something outside of this universe not bound by its rules. My problem lies with applying this universes rules to explain it, and doing it by breaking this universes rules.

It goes back to the assumption the cause of this universe must be outside of it. Why? There are a host of other options. It’s also telling that you use evidence presented by scientific inquiry and logic (all evidence points to a beginning, time and matter are linked, etc) yet summarily dismiss that logic (supernatural) when it reaches a point where it fits what you want to believe.

Believe what you want. Fine. But just call it supernatural and stop with the logic, regression, etc rules of this natural universe to paint a face on it.

I'm not sure on how well versed Crush is in scholastic metaphysics, but I'll take a crack at answering you.

First, you cannot separate his argument from the metaphysics that underline said argument. And I can provide a brief summary of how his argument relates to his metaphysics.

For Aquinas,
he never said that everything had a cause. In regards to our current conversation, he argued anything that came into existence must have a cause. This is because whatever came into existence had unrealized potentials (e.g., plastic has the potential to be made into a cup) that must have been actualized (e.g., the process of plastic being made into a cup) by something in order to reach whatever form (e.g., the cup) it has taken. The reason why this does not apply to God? He is pure actuality; he does not and cannot have potentials to be actualized. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how part of his nature came about. He is metaphysically simple; he is not and cannot be composed of parts. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how each part was conjoined to create him.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Negative, I don’t like physical discussions with metaphysical littered in where you see fit. You keep calling this a metaphysical discussion, yet you are consistently interjecting physical phenomenon and “lol” when we question your “metaphysical discussion”. Smh.

What’s wrong with this statement:

Gravity is the result of metaphysical phenomenon.


Sure we have physical theories. Sure it doesn’t need metaphysical explanation. But doing what your doing, you should have no issue with it. After all, how do we know gravity doesn’t exist outside of this universe?

Why even utilize the physical logic of this universe when you arbitrarily stop it as you see fit?

Astrology, alchemy, Elvis alive...all do this. Call it metaphysical all you want, but it overtly intrudes into the physical universe and you are all too eager to do it.

The fact that you call it arbitrary shows me that you really don't understand the argument. Note that it's not my argument. It's just the argument being discussed.

I seem to remember being in discussions that you participated in per string theory and many other metaphysical conversations. You were fine then as I recall.

I have a bit of advice for you and septic. Stay out of cosmological discussions or learn how they work. We can discuss physical laws and logic to take us back to the "first causes" as so called. We can recognize logically when those things will break down. But in any event, in any cosmological argument, we'll eventually get to "magic:, as septic so ignorantly called it. ***That's what the conversations do by definition!***

If you don't like how those conversations are had, or can't grasp how, then by all means sit it out.

And to reiterate, I suspect you wouldn't take such issues with other metaphysics discussions. I suspect it's just the religious implications of this one that gets your dander up.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not sure on how well versed Crush is in scholastic metaphysics, but I'll take a crack at answering you.

First, you cannot separate his argument from the metaphysics that underline said argument. And I can provide a brief summary of how his argument relates to his metaphysics.

For Aquinas,
he never said that everything had a cause. In regards to our current conversation, he argued anything that came into existence must have a cause. This is because whatever came into existence had unrealized potentials (e.g., plastic has the potential to be made into a cup) that must have been actualized (e.g., the process of plastic being made into a cup) by something in order to reach whatever form (e.g., the cup) it has taken. The reason why this does not apply to God? He is pure actuality; he does not and cannot have potentials to be actualized. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how part of his nature came about. He is metaphysically simple; he is not and cannot be composed of parts. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how each part was conjoined to create him.

I am familliar, but realize that it would have to be taken down to a simpler level. I don't think it's an intelligence thing. I think they are resisting implications--and I think rjd is REALLY close to admitting that in his last post.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not sure on how well versed Crush is in scholastic metaphysics, but I'll take a crack at answering you.

First, you cannot separate his argument from the metaphysics that underline said argument. And I can provide a brief summary of how his argument relates to his metaphysics.

For Aquinas,
he never said that everything had a cause. In regards to our current conversation, he argued anything that came into existence must have a cause. This is because whatever came into existence had unrealized potentials (e.g., plastic has the potential to be made into a cup) that must have been actualized (e.g., the process of plastic being made into a cup) by something in order to reach whatever form (e.g., the cup) it has taken. The reason why this does not apply to God? He is pure actuality; he does not and cannot have potentials to be actualized. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how part of his nature came about. He is metaphysically simple; he is not and cannot be composed of parts. Therefore, there is no principle needed to explain how each part was conjoined to create him.

Quotes like “God is actuality” are showstoppers, and I get that. I can’t argue with that statement because it has no basis either one of us can point back to. That’s why these discussions get heat and frustrated.

The problem from this side of the aisle is someone a 1000 years ago could have said the same thing about the sun rising and achieved a similar showstopper to the debate.

 

[rjd970]

The fact that you call it arbitrary shows me that you really don't understand the argument. Note that it's not my argument. It's just the argument being discussed.

I seem to remember being in discussions that you participated in per string theory and many other metaphysical conversations. You were fine then as I recall.

I have a bit of advice for you and septic. Stay out of cosmological discussions or learn how they work. We can discuss physical laws and logic to take us back to the "first causes" as so called. We can recognize logically when those things will break down. But in any event, in any cosmological argument, we'll eventually get to "magic:, as septic so ignorantly called it. ***That's what the conversations do by definition!***

If you don't like how those conversations are had, or can't grasp how, then by all means sit it out.

And to reiterate, I suspect you wouldn't take such issues with other metaphysics discussions. I suspect it's just the religious implications of this one that gets your dander up.

Let’s try this approach.

You freely admit the natural law of cause effect breaks down at some point. If that is wrong, then let me know.

When cause and effect breaks down you move to the supernatural explanation. If this is wrong, let me know.

My question is why even use the natural cause and effect law to explain phenomenon, to only reach a supernatural endgame? See my gravity question. The intermingling is where the issue is. When cause and effect seemingly breaks down, then the conclusion is there is a further cause and effect chain that is yet unknown, not that supernatural explanations are needed and the rules change. If there is a supernatural end game, then cause and effect don’t apply anywhere since supernatural can interject at any time.

As far as infinite regression and time implications are concerned, and as it relates to cause and effects, we are talking about the “start” of time itself. We don’t know what this universe is comprised of. Multiple dimensions in this natural universe may not even exist in time. Or maybe there is no beginning of time and the whole thing is a closed manifold.

Point being, logical cause and effect as it relates to our reality precludes an unmoved mover, not demands it.

 

[rjd970]

I am familliar, but realize that it would have to be taken down to a simpler level. I don't think it's an intelligence thing. I think they are resisting implications--and I think rjd is REALLY close to admitting that in his last post.

Nope. Not even close. I’m not interjecting the supernatural into a natural explanation.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Let’s try this approach.

You freely admit the natural law of cause effect breaks down at some point. If that is wrong, then let me know.

When cause and effect breaks down you move to the supernatural explanation. If this is wrong, let me know.

My question is why even use the natural cause and effect law to explain phenomenon, to only reach a supernatural endgame? See my gravity question. The intermingling is where the issue is. When cause and effect seemingly breaks down, then the conclusion is there is a further cause and effect chain that is yet unknown, not that supernatural explanations are needed and the rules change. If there is a supernatural end game, then cause and effect don’t apply anywhere since supernatural can interject at any time.

As far as infinite regression and time implications are concerned, and as it relates to cause and effects, we are talking about the “start” of time itself. We don’t know what this universe is comprised of. Multiple dimensions in this natural universe may not even exist in time. Or maybe there is no beginning of time and the whole thing is a closed manifold.

Point being, logical cause and effect as it relates to our reality precludes an unmoved mover, not demands it.

Let me answer why to intermingle. Because they intermingle when taking arguments back to such metaphysical concepts. You alluded to such by referring back to multiple dimensions. I did as well when I mentioned string theory.

They intermingle. Either get used to it, or don't. It doesn't change how these arguments unfold.

Let me explain why I took it to the "supernatural" (we could even call it extra-natural, pre-natural if that would help)...

Aquinas' argument was listed. Septic falsely claimed the argument was making special pleading. I tried to explain that it wasn't. (I've already given it more time than it deserves, as it REALLY shouldn't be this hard to comprehend.)

Special pleading is to exempt your argument from its own logic. So, to show that Aquinas was not doing so, I had to painstakingly list his logical argument, which goes back before the creation of the universe to show that God would be a different classification than the universe, thus not a special pleading from the logic.

(i.e. You and septic both made an error of type by claiming special pleading. It would be similar to you claiming that I made a special pleading that people don't have four legs.)

So, why did I intermingle natural law with extra-natural logic? Because I was talking about both the universe and also what is not the universe.

Again... This REALLY isn't that hard to grasp.

Now... Do I think this line of logic proves God? No. I don't think one can prove God.

Do I use this line of logic to prove God? I didn't bring it up.

Was Aquinas guilty of special pleading? No. As I have shown.

Did I have to intermingle natural law and metaphysics to recount the argument and also show it wasn't special pleading?

Yep. Get over it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nope. Not even close. I’m not interjecting the supernatural into a natural explanation.

I was answering a supernatural question, Cochise. My entire conversation was a response to the following question. I bet you could answer it in one sentence.

"Oh yah? Then why doesn't God need a creator too?!"

You need more than one period to answer?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I was answering a supernatural question, Cochise. My entire conversation was a response to the following question. I bet you could answer it in one sentence.

"Oh yah? Then why doesn't God need a creator too?!"

You need more than one period to answer?

Because he’s G-d. Duh

 

[rjd970]

Let me answer why to intermingle. Because they intermingle when taking arguments back to such metaphysical concepts. You alluded to such by referring back to multiple dimensions. I did as well when I mentioned string theory.

They intermingle. Either get used to it, or don't. It doesn't change how these arguments unfold.

Let me explain why I took it to the "supernatural" (we could even call it extra-natural, pre-natural if that would help)...

Aquinas' argument was listed. Septic falsely claimed the argument was making special pleading. I tried to explain that it wasn't. (I've already given it more time than it deserves, as it REALLY shouldn't be this hard to comprehend.)

Special pleading is to exempt your argument from its own logic. So, to show that Aquinas was not doing so, I had to painstakingly list his logical argument, which goes back before the creation of the universe to show that God would be a different classification than the universe, thus not a special pleading from the logic.

(i.e. You and septic both made an error of type by claiming special pleading. It would be similar to you claiming that I made a special pleading that people don't have four legs.)

So, why did I intermingle natural law with extra-natural logic? Because I was talking about both the universe and also what is not the universe.

Again... This REALLY isn't that hard to grasp.

Now... Do I think this line of logic proves God? No. I don't think one can prove God.

Do I use this line of logic to prove God? I didn't bring it up.

Was Aquinas guilty of special pleading? No. As I have shown.

Did I have to intermingle natural law and metaphysics to recount the argument and also show it wasn't special pleading?

Yep. Get over it.

I assure you I was over this before we started. It is absolutely special pleading if you are using the supernatural to make sense of a natural law. It is exempting from your own logic. Everything has a cause and effect.

...well except one case where it doesn’t apply because, outside of universe, exempt from laws, (insert whatever metaphysical whatever you want).

Im sorry, that is the very definition of exempting.

Simply stating he is outside the universe so the rules don’t apply goes back to what I was saying before. It’s a showstopper. As soon as someone says magic, it’s no different than someone stating the same thing about the sun rising 5000 years ago. And they would be just as logically wrong then as they are now.

Twist it anyway you want. Aquinas does the same thing.

I’m not going to pull one of your lines and state you don’t like where that leads to. You’re too smart for that and I think that is beyond silly. I truly think you actually believe this.

 

[Septic]

Let me answer why to intermingle. Because they intermingle when taking arguments back to such metaphysical concepts. You alluded to such by referring back to multiple dimensions. I did as well when I mentioned string theory.

They intermingle. Either get used to it, or don't. It doesn't change how these arguments unfold.

Let me explain why I took it to the "supernatural" (we could even call it extra-natural, pre-natural if that would help)...

Aquinas' argument was listed. Septic falsely claimed the argument was making special pleading. I tried to explain that it wasn't. (I've already given it more time than it deserves, as it REALLY shouldn't be this hard to comprehend.)

Special pleading is to exempt your argument from its own logic. So, to show that Aquinas was not doing so, I had to painstakingly list his logical argument, which goes back before the creation of the universe to show that God would be a different classification than the universe, thus not a special pleading from the logic.

(i.e. You and septic both made an error of type by claiming special pleading. It would be similar to you claiming that I made a special pleading that people don't have four legs.)

So, why did I intermingle natural law with extra-natural logic? Because I was talking about both the universe and also what is not the universe.

Again... This REALLY isn't that hard to grasp.

Now... Do I think this line of logic proves God? No. I don't think one can prove God.

Do I use this line of logic to prove God? I didn't bring it up.

Was Aquinas guilty of special pleading? No. As I have shown.

Did I have to intermingle natural law and metaphysics to recount the argument and also show it wasn't special pleading?

Yep. Get over it.

It's special pleading and your inability to accept it doesn't change that truth. Frankly, it's a bit astonishing to me to see someone who I thought was well versed in this area completely sht the bed like this.


FWIW and perhaps what you may believe to be a twist of irony, I genuinely believe you believe what you're saying. Wrong as it is.

 

[rjd970]

I was answering a supernatural question, Cochise. My entire conversation was a response to the following question. I bet you could answer it in one sentence.

"Oh yah? Then why doesn't God need a creator too?!"

You need more than one period to answer?

And that question was in response to something can’t come from nothing? No?

Well of course it can as you and Aquinas have shown, it just needs its own special rules.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I assure you I was over this before we started. It is absolutely special pleading if you are using the supernatural to make sense of a natural law. It is exempting from your own logic. Everything has a cause and effect.

...well except one case where it doesn’t apply because, outside of universe, exempt from laws, (insert whatever metaphysical whatever you want).

Im sorry, that is the very definition of exempting.

Simply stating he is outside the universe so the rules don’t apply goes back to what I was saying before. It’s a showstopper. As soon as someone says magic, it’s no different than someone stating the same thing about the sun rising 5000 years ago. And they would be just as logically wrong then as they are now.

Twist it anyway you want. Aquinas does the same thing.

I’m not going to pull one of your lines and state you don’t like where that leads to. You’re too smart for that and I think that is beyond silly. I truly think you actually believe this.

Sorry. I didn't even read all of that. (I'm not wasting any more of my time on either of you.) Here's why I stopped reading.

(1) [Bold One] Even after all I've written, you still misrepresent Aquinas' argument.

(2) [Bold Two] You've established that it is by definition NOT special pleading, it is a completely different classification. I'm going to all-cap this for clarification. THE VERY EXCEPTION THAT YOU TAKE WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THE REASON IT'S NOT SPECIAL PLEADING!

Good day.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's special pleading and your inability to accept it doesn't change that truth. Frankly, it's a bit astonishing to me to see someone who I thought was well versed in this area completely sht the bed like this.


FWIW and perhaps what you may believe to be a twist of irony, I genuinely believe you believe what you're saying. Wrong as it is.

All you've really done is show that you don't know what special pleading is.

"All dogs have four legs."

"Humans don't"

That's not special pleading either.

Good night, sep.

 

[JHuntVols]

Quotes like “God is actuality” are showstoppers, and I get that. I can’t argue with that statement because it has no basis either one of us can point back to. That’s why these discussions get heat and frustrated.

The problem from this side of the aisle is someone a 1000 years ago could have said the same thing about the sun rising and achieved a similar showstopper to the debate.

Well, what Aquinas said was written some 700 - 800 years ago. And the ideas of Aquinas are heavily influenced by Aristotle, who was more or less one of the originators of the Primer Mover argument. What do you mean by no basis to reference? His metaphysics have been elaborated on and criticized for literally hundreds of years.

The point of that explanation is to demonstrate that the classical theist idea of god is not special pleading.

 

[JHuntVols]

It's special pleading and your inability to accept it doesn't change that truth. Frankly, it's a bit astonishing to me to see someone who I thought was well versed in this area completely sht the bed like this.


FWIW and perhaps what you may believe to be a twist of irony, I genuinely believe you believe what you're saying. Wrong as it is.

It's special pleading only if you do not understand the metaphysics behind the argument. Aquinas provided more than enough logical justification for his conception of god to abide by a different set of laws than what governs his creation. To reiterate, his conception of god does not rely on the premise that everything needs to have a cause.