Comments on: 10 Atheist Arguments I Like (part 3)

By: Tzvi Kilov

Tzvi Kilov — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:20:56 +0000

In reply to LS. I don't disagree with any particular point. Just moving the conversation higher. I openly acknowledge, repeatedly, that these articles are NOT where the tire hits the road, where these issues really play out against each other in all their strength, etc. The point is we theists shouldn't be so glib! "What caused God" is a *good* response to our glibness. It's a better glibness!

By: LS

LS — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 10:18:58 +0000

It seems to me that you’ve taken a glib argument, “what caused God?,” and somewhat arbitrarily assumed that it’s a response to a bit of medieval logicsmithing.

You acknowledge an extant version of the argument which addresses that bit of medieval logic more seriously, but direct your response at the glib one.

More realistically, a snarky “So what caused god?” is a response to an equally snarky “So first there was nothing, and then everything just exploded without cause? Checkmate, atheists!”

By: ericlinuskaplan

ericlinuskaplan — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 22:32:44 +0000

A way to make your point is to distinguish between “cause” and “explanation”. Aquinas argues that it makes no sense to believe in an infinite chain of explanations, and concludes that there must be a first explanation that is itself unexplained, which he calls God. You are quite correct that he does not believe this proves there must have been a first moment in time. He thinks it is logically possible that there could have been an infinite series of moments in time, but believes that this whole infinite series must have a reason (or explanation) for existing.
I wish though you would state what you think the atheist argument is, since “what caused God?” is not an argument, it is a question. What do you think the argument is?