Different in degree or kind: Egnor's reasoning God exists (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 26, 2020, 22:46 (1492 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "The cosmological arguments follow the same formal structure as any theory in science. They invoke evidence from nature (things change, things are caused, things exist), analyze the evidence on a logical framework, and arrive at an inductive conclusion.
The evidence for the cosmological arguments is massive, the logic is impeccable, and the conclusion is inescapable. God exists, with more certainty than we know of the existence of anything in science."

DAVID: Read in entirety for real understanding. Very long.

dhw: Then thank you for editing it. The whole thing would have been even more unbearable.

dhw: I can see absolutely no logical link between the known facts of change, causation and existence and the conclusion that God must exist. You might just as well say impersonal nature consists of materials and energy which are constantly changing and each change has a cause, and there is an infinite number of potential combinations. I much prefer your own logical analysis of the complexities of living organisms as evidence of a designer.

Deeply thoughtful folks like Ed Feser agree with all of this. He started his adult life as an agnostic/atheist!!! Is now Catholic. Website:

https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fedwardfeser.blogspot.com%2F

dhw: We had a similar exchange under “Revisiting language”:

DAVID: …how did cells find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought?

dhw: […] in the context of the source of the intelligent cell….nobody knows, and we can only guess. One guess is a mysterious, unknown being you call God. How did God find that intelligence which implies the ability for abstract thought, not to mention the knowledge and power to create a whole universe and life itself? Oh, “first cause” – intelligent cells must have a source, but an unknown and almighty intelligence doesn’t have to have a source.

DAVID: Same old response. We exist. There is something. It cannot have come from nothing. Something has to be first cause which is eternal ..

dhw: And the same old response to your same old response: of course there has to be a first cause. And the alternative to God is eternal matter and energy forever forming new combinations until eventually they hit the jackpot. No more and no less unlikely than the God theory.

I like Feser and some of his St. Thomas discussions. They make sense to me.