2006-09-25 21:55:27 · 10 answers · asked by stracciatella89 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Its not true , that would be classed as a weakness.
2006-09-25 21:57:35 · answer #1 · answered by lefang 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is normally called the "Prime Mover" argument.
It goes like this...
1. Every thing has either been caused to exist by something else or else exists uncaused.
2. Not every thing has been caused to exist by something else.
3. Therefore, at least one thing is itself uncaused.
First we would have to except premis 2. If you do not except premis 2 it falls apart. But if you do except premis 2 you still do not have a reason to name god as the "Prime Mover". You could use Occum's Razor and say the universe is uncaused to remove the diety.
Have you tried to use the Kalam argument to prove god? It is basically the same thing with a few more bells and wistles. Some people might buy it but not me.
Good luck in your search for God.
2006-09-25 23:10:55 · answer #2 · answered by upallnite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was based in theology. He assumed that the Natural world was a world created by God when in reality there could be an infinate number of other posibilities. In a sense it was a self-fulfilling profecy. It proved God Existed because God Existed.
2006-09-25 21:59:00 · answer #3 · answered by W0LF 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The main weakness is that he starts from a position of belief. Every rational philosopher since Socrates has recognised that it's best to begin with doubt and skepticism.
2006-09-25 22:02:47 · answer #4 · answered by Chris 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins for a good run-down (and demolition) of most arguments for the existence of God.
2016-03-27 10:13:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The main weakness is that faith is still a required part of the argument.
2006-09-25 23:12:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe he says that there must be an uncaused cause of the universe's existence and that uncaused cause must be a god. The premise is perhaps reasonable but the conclusion is not - It does not follow (non sequitur).
2006-09-25 22:07:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Haven't read it. Perhaps someone better educated than myself
will respond.
I Corinthians 13;8a, Love never fails!!!!!
9-25-6
2006-09-25 21:57:53 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Off hand I'd say it was a load of rubbish seeing as you ask.
2006-09-25 22:57:20 · answer #9 · answered by Dover Soles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it doesn't exist.
2006-09-30 21:06:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋