Grizz writes
For someone who holds to theism, I would not be trying to establish the Bible as a means of proving the existence of God. I would appeal to the argument above then try to explain why that extra level of causation would be neccesary when the nature of things themselves would suffice as a fundamental cause.
You use the word 'cause' as if it means and includes 'source', it does not.
This is the second time you have used the word NECESSARY to form an argument, in conjunction with the principle of causality. You miss the point. Its only needs to be demonstratable and therefore very probable that such a cause and effect principle is observable and then it is 'necessary' to move twords infinite regress. The nature of things would suffice for a sufficent and fundamental CAUSE as an explanation of themselves but not any reasonable explanation of thier source of materials. There is a very big difference. Therefore it is very unreasonable to stop with the principle of cause and effect.
One could certainly ask why is there a need to add another level of complexity by invoking God as an extra cause when 'nature' itself can be that final causal stop in the food chain.
You present the explanation of God as if it were simply a wonderment and not a natural logical conclusion derived from the observation of cause and effect. There is not only a need to add this level of complexity but a responsibility if we are going to discuss the possible origins of anything. Nature is not the FINAL casual stop in anything, especially in the question of origins.
Your "fine tuned argument" above asks individuals to really disregard most if not all of the observable evidence in favor of a causal stance that would blind people to the fact causes do have effects and the logical conclusion is that if material properties do not have within themselves sustainable, properties of eternality, then something must.
The principle of the unmoved mover cannot be explained away, no matter how eloquent the argument may appear. It is practicle, believable and demonstratable, from any REASONABLE standpoint. You may not agree with it or accept it, but it is a valid way to proceed. If one contemplates the material universe as eternal, then the explanation of God is set out with equal force.
You miss the point Grizz, its not the inital NECESSITY of anything. It is the reasoning and probability that are a part of the material universe and its make up and laws that invites the conclusion as a 'necessary' explanation of things.
While not absolutley provable, one should not adopt the casual stance that you are advocating. There is no REASON to do so.
Thanks
D Bertot
™ Version 4.2
