(Untitled)

[goldenstitch]

So there are 5 logical ways of proving that God actually exists. I read all five and I dont know if they proved his existence or ultimately denied it. Under the PNC (Principle of Non-contradiction) it states that something cannot both be and not be in the same respect

Comments

[anonymous]

First mover is only a version of the cosmological argument.

because if everything has a cause then obviously there must be a first cause which in turn also caused itself.

A first cause did not necessarily cause itself; that's assuming that causation has to have a foundation and that an infinite transcendental Dasein has no place in this. It also assumes that our design plan of logic is applicant to a deity which allegedly is the "first-cause" (IE. ought the first-cause Dasein be subordinate to a design plan of logical deduction if he isthe first-cause Dasein? That's assuming that universal laws apply to this metaphysical Dasein, and why ought they?).

also, if it's true there is a first mover, does that automatically qualify this first mover as what we would categorize as "God?"

Aquinas explicitly writes that his ways do not intend to get at God and his characteristics, but that it is simply a demonstration of His existence. No theologian has exerted that any of the various proofs of God's existence is a full-on deductive way to get at the God as accepted by Judeo-Christianity and his omniscience, omnipotence, et al. That is where the role of faith comes in, as these categorizations are beyond our comprehension. In other words, theologians don't affirm that their ways of proving God's existence can be sufficient for a person to logically attain proof of God; that would be blasphemous.
Of course, to argue whether the demonstration is sufficient is another issue.