Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[Nearly Sane]

I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.

Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which was it's first error, of course.

O.

I don't know what the state of play is on the Kalam Cosmological argument but Aquinas certainly never relied on it since infinite universes were being proposed even in his time I believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?

Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.

[Nearly Sane]

Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.

Non sequitur. And is just a set of assertions. Not sure 'existence exists' makes any coherent sense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non sequitur. And is just a set of assertions. Not sure 'existence exists' makes any coherent sense.

I see you are partizan in which tautology you criticised.
Of course for a human. Things popping out of nothing is de rigour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Could you explain how you have established that it is a valud question?

Why should it be invalid?

[Nearly Sane]

Why should it be invalid?

Steve said that it is valid. Asking him to show that isn't saying it is invalid.

[Stranger]

I don't know what the state of play is on the Kalam Cosmological argument but Aquinas certainly never relied on it since infinite universes were being proposed even in his time I believe.

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

-- The Summa Theologić of St. Thomas Aquinas

Not that it matters all that much since nobody is using this argument but let's have the record straight.

[Nearly Sane]

I see you are partizan in which tautology you criticised.
Of course for a human. Things popping out of nothing is de rigour.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."

-- The Summa Theologić of St. Thomas Aquinas

Not that it matters all that much since nobody is using this argument but let's have the record straight.

What has this got to do with Aquinas relying on the Kalam Cosmological argument or Dawkin's misrepresentation of it?

[Stranger]

What has this got to do with Aquinas relying on the Kalam Cosmological argument or Dawkin's misrepresentation of it?

This:

Whereas 'everything has a cause' therefore 'god is the uncaused cause' is both special pleading and an oxymoron at the same time. It's almost like we're not cerebrally equipped to intuit this stuff...

O.

I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand)...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This:I'm not sure any philosopher put it like that. Dawkin's claimed it was Aquinas(falsely I understand)...

Where do you think Aquinas has said "Everything has a cause"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I agree that "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question that atheists need to answer.

Why do you think atheists need to answer that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God is proposed as the reason for something rather than nothing and the universe is the something...or collection of somethings.

One could also say God is the reason for physics.

“One” could, but if “one” did then “one” would open himself up to the question, “what is the reason for God then?”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What was said in the Kalam Cosmological Argument was Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

You're welcome.

Has anyone demonstrated that the universe has a beginning?

You're welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But it's highly vital in the question of asserting that the universe just is and that's the end to it.

Russell didn’t say “that’s the end to it”. What he said was that the end of what we can say about it, which is a different matter entirely. He was commented on the limits of knowledge. not proffering an explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Existence exists, contingent things only exist due to an external reason or reasons.

As you're still ducking and diving about this I’ll try again: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In terms of fallacy.

A wall of small red bricks is not necessarily small but it cannot be yellow..

and that is analogous to what Hillside is saying.

Needless to say, that’s not equivalent to what Hillside is saying at all. What Hillside is saying though is that the fact of the universe’s component parts being contingent on each other does not imply that the universe as a whole must also be contingent on something other than itself.

I keep asking you why (without collapsing again into the fallacy of composition) you think otherwise but you keep running away from that question.

Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you're still ducking and diving about this I’ll try again: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THE UNIVERSE IS CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN ITSELF?

"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.

So what you should have properly asked is
What makes you think the universe is contingent?

It is a composite dependent on it's existence on it's component parts.
No components no universe.

So it is contingent not because of the contingency of it's parts
But because it depends on the existence of it's parts.

Your welcome.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Why do you think atheists need to answer that?

Well, obviously it's not obligatory  , but it's a valid, non-stupid question.

[SteveH]

it's existence on it's component parts.
 it's parts
 it's parts.

"its".

Your welcome.

"You're".

[Nearly Sane]

Well, obviously it's not obligatory  , but it's a valid, non-stupid question.

Again can you show why it's valid?

[SteveH]

"contingent on something other than itself" is a tautology.

A tautology is a statement that says the same thing twice, in different words. This doesn't, and thus is not a tautology.

[SteveH]

Again can you show why it's valid?

Surely the onus is on you to explain why it isn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Surely the onus is on you to explain why it isn't.

No, because I'm not saying that it isn't. I don't know that it is. You've made the positive claim that it is valid.