People use this logic:
1. All things have a cause.
2. If you go back far enough, there has to be a first.
3. The first cause was an Uncaused cause aka God.
Someone explain to me why the 3rd statement does not contradict the 1st?
This is an honest question and I am not supporting/denying the existance of a God. I just hear this logic all the time.
If you are to use Kiekergaard's explanation of infinity of potentiality cannot suddenly turn into actuality without some agent making that change, how can one be sure that this characteristic of God is the same God some religions talk about? What if, and there are, many different characteristics of God that people just lump them into one being just because our only word for this being is God? Was it our language's fault for not coming up with names for different characteristics of "God" ?
Idk, if I sound confusing, Ill add details for those that are confused.
2006-08-14
22:50:25
·
8 answers
·
asked by
leikevy
5
in
Philosophy