This doesn't address the argument itself, only entailments.
Mr. Schieber continues in arguing the implications of the conclusion rather than the argument or conclusion itself. My argument cannot be rendered unsound if the argument itself has not been critiqued and dealt with. It is illicit to deny the whole argument due to later entailments. In private correspondence Mr. Schieber recognized this, so I will leave it up to him for his next rebuttal to interact with my argument and not just entailments.
CONTEXT(Help)
-
Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist? »Andrews/Schieber: Does the God of Christianity Exist?
The God of Christianity exists »The God of Christianity exists
The Thomistic Cosmological Argument »The Thomistic Cosmological Argument
(4) Therefore, the universe supports an uncaused cause »(4) Therefore, the universe supports an uncaused cause
If there is a first uncause cause, it has to be an impersonal being. »If there is a first uncause cause, it has to be an impersonal being.
This doesn't address the argument itself, only entailments.
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About