No. The people proving him wrong suddenly do. I'd show some respect if they'd cite arguments from non-Christian physicists, or had some kind of degree.
WLC: ""The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal," advised Thomas Aquinas. "For, if the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited to account for this origin of the world and of motion . . . , since nothing brings itself from potency to act, or from non-being to being."{1} In Thomas's thinking, once it is conceded that the world began to exist, the argument is for all practical purposes over: it is obvious that a First Cause must exist. He therefore sought to prove God's existence on the more neutral presupposition of the eternity of the world; besides, the temporal finitude of the world could be known only by revelation, since the philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe were, in his opinion, unsound."
Is not the Argument from Reason also agnostic in regard to the question of the world having a beginning?
I think Smith has since accepted Craig's correction, that the singularity has no ontological existence. I seem to recall reading another of his essays where he points this out, and says it's the majority view of physical cosmologists.
Do you remember the Wilson-style-AFR where he said "Chemicals don't debate"? Smiths argument makes even less sense if you ask me.
ReplyDeleteI dislike talking about cosmology and apologetics. Bring up WLC, or Stephen Barr, etc, and suddenly everyone knows quantum mechanics.
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that Stephen Barr doesn't know QM?
No. The people proving him wrong suddenly do. I'd show some respect if they'd cite arguments from non-Christian physicists, or had some kind of degree.
ReplyDeleteWLC: ""The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal," advised Thomas Aquinas. "For, if the world and motion have a first beginning, some cause must clearly be posited to account for this origin of the world and of motion . . . , since nothing brings itself from potency to act, or from non-being to being."{1} In Thomas's thinking, once it is conceded that the world began to exist, the argument is for all practical purposes over: it is obvious that a First Cause must exist. He therefore sought to prove God's existence on the more neutral presupposition of the eternity of the world; besides, the temporal finitude of the world could be known only by revelation, since the philosophical arguments for a beginning of the universe were, in his opinion, unsound."
ReplyDeleteIs not the Argument from Reason also agnostic in regard to the question of the world having a beginning?
I think Smith has since accepted Craig's correction, that the singularity has no ontological existence. I seem to recall reading another of his essays where he points this out, and says it's the majority view of physical cosmologists.
ReplyDelete