In alt.religion.christian Alen
westserv.net.au> wrote:>> In alt.religion.christian Alen
westserv.net.au> wrote:
>>>>> It is much more sensible
>>> to hold that a cause must already contain the qualities it
>>> confers on its effects, and not be totally lacking in them.
>>
>> Yes. Â That makes sense.
>>
>> So what cause contains the qualities of God? Â It is more sensible to hold
>> that the cause of God must already contains the qualities of God, in order
>> to confer on God, and not be totally lacking in them. Â Right?
> [...]
> I never said that God had to be caused.
I know. My point is that your argument fails for a couple of reasons.
One is that you have no basis whatsoever for your main thesis about the
qualities of a cause, and the other is that if your these is true, it
applies to God too. And of course, that leads to an infinite regress.
See what I
> said elsewhere on this thread about necessary
> being and the impossibility of 'nothingness'
So you are saying that the universe always existed, because otherwise, an
impossible nothingness must have preceeded it?
And please, don't let it go this time.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
