Monday, January 02, 2006
And Notre Dame Lost As Well
By predicating a First Cause... the theist removes the mystery a stage further back. This First Cause they assume to be a cause that was not caused and this First Cause is God. Such a belief is a logical absurdity, and is an example of the ancient custom of creating a mystery to explain a mystery. If everything must have a cause, then the First Cause must be caused and therefore: Who made God? To say that this First Cause always existed is to deny the basic assumption of this "Theory." Moreover, if it is reasonable to assume a First Cause as having always existed, why is it unreasonable to assume that the materials of the universe always existed? To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy.
David Brooks
Comments:
<< Home
As Aquinas 'splained,' Aristotle's argument (Uncaused Cause) --as well as all the others made for the existence of God---is in the end, not conclusive.
But it was Descartes (??) who also used hard logic to postulate that it's more prudent to believe than NOT to believe.
Post a Comment
But it was Descartes (??) who also used hard logic to postulate that it's more prudent to believe than NOT to believe.
<< Home
