tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post1027219465782025009..comments2024-01-02T04:49:16.658-05:00Comments on He Lives: Bavinck on the Cosmological Proof of GodDavidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-67084703711611751252018-03-27T04:42:11.975-04:002018-03-27T04:42:11.975-04:00Thanks for the response, David.
What I mean to s...Thanks for the response, David. <br /><br />What I mean to say is that the other arguments simply proceed whether or not the universe finite, had a beginning etc. The arguments don't claim the universe is eternal; rather the question is irrelevant. <br /><br />If you haven't, I really recommend reading the literature on the classical first cause/cosmological arguments that are concerned with the sheer actuality of things.<br /> <br />For in such cosmological arguments, the nature of the First Cause is very clear, and follows immediately. There is no leap from first cause to God in those arguments, is what i'm trying to say.Jasonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-89038267598336574292018-03-26T07:46:36.822-04:002018-03-26T07:46:36.822-04:00Jason, Thanks for the reply.
I read the Feser blo...Jason, Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />I read the Feser blogpost. Leaving aside its obnoxious "I'm smart and you're dumb" attitude, it is primarily concerned an incorrect formulation of the argument, on which P1 is "everything that exists has a cause". Of course the form I used does has P1 as *whatever begins* to exist has a cause. <br /><br />As for all the forms that allow for an eternal (in the past) universe, I agree philosophically with Bavinck that it is absurd, I would also argue mathematically it is absurd, and finally the crushing blow is that scientifically the increasingly accelerating universe we find ourselves to be inhabiting has all but killed any eternally bouncing cosmos models. Our universe, at least, had a beginning and as far as science can say, it will expand forever until all matter breaks down an there is nothing but a barely above absolute zero glow.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08688240424047203541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3500036.post-49629005599914214272018-03-25T05:48:32.633-04:002018-03-25T05:48:32.633-04:00The first cause argument mentioned in this post at...The first cause argument mentioned in this post attempts to prove the universe has a temporally first cause. But all the other cosmological arguments allow for an eternal universe; for their concern is not when or how the universe got started, but rather concern actuality and potentiality, possibility and necessity etc. These considerations lead us to a 'First Cause' - something that is Pure Actuality, for instance. It is not temporally first, but rather ontologically.<br /><br />And then further deduction shows that to be pure actuality is to be eternal, immaterial etc.<br /><br />I strongly recommend a book called 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God' by Edward Feser. Any of his work on God, really. Or check out his blog post: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html <br /><br />Once understood, you may see what exactly it means to be the First Cause, and that indeed it is God in the most proper sense.Jasonnoreply@blogger.com