From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:10:12 GMT

In article <ked-240193222625@m248-104.bgsu.edu> ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly) writes:
>Thomas Aquinas, a most influential Roman Catholic theologian and
>philosopher come up with the First Cause Argument also known as the
>Cosmological Argument.  In it he stated several arguments that he believed
>makes it clear that God does exist.  Let's study his argument for a minute:
>	1.  Everything thtat exists had a cause of its coming into existence
>	2.  Nothing can be the cause of itself
>	3.  There cannot be an infinate series of causal chains
>	4.  Therefore, there most be a first cause
>	5.  The First Cause must be God
>-----------------------]
>	6.  Therefore, God exists.

Actually, Aquinas is correct on his first four counts.  However, the problem
is his "leap of faith" (sorry, I _had_ to say that!) that he makes on his
fifth point.

>	Earth is possitioned just right for it to substain life.  Not too close,
>not too far away from the sun.  The atmoshphere is a collection of gases. 
>What if the gases around the earth's ring combusted, forming chemical
>reactions.  Scientists know how water is formed:  Hydrogen and Oxygen. 
>Perhaps these elements were already in the atmospher.  Perhaps the
>temperature was just right to form the chemical reaction that causes water.
> Water is the back bone of life.  

Yes, it's true, earth IS postioned perfectly to sustain our form of life.
This is a very popular argument by theists.  It is also perfectly
worthless.  (I'm not yelling at you, Mr. Burly, because in the context of
this post you are innocent.)  My question to these people is, "How in the
hell can you imagine that our form of life could have evolved in an
environment which couldn't support it?"  (They'll give you some stupid
answer, but oh well.)

>	Now we need a First Cause.  If it is so easy to believe that there is a
>God, isn't even easier to believe that in the pools of water that have

Actually, you need to go back a lot farther if you want to find the First
Cause.  But your point is still valid, if you're looking for the first
cause of terran life.

>	God is defined as an all knowing, all powerful, all good higher being.

He certainly is.  And therein lies the problem.  God is supposed to be 
infinite.  But the infinite has no identity (the reason we're talking about
the First Cause to begin with).  The infinite, to use Aristotle's
nomenclature, is potentiality, and can neevr be achieved in actuality (what
you have is what you have and no more, so to speak).  So much for the
omniscient, omnipotent God.  He would know what He knows and could do what
He can do, and no more.

The question of his being "all good" came up earlier today, and I'm glad
to have an opportunity to talk about it.  Let's set aside his metaphysical
contradiction.  If God exists, and he is all-powerful and indestructible,
what difference would ethics make to him?  He can't make value-judgements
because doing the wrong thing has absolutely no effect on an immortal
being.  In fact, he would know nothing of ethics.  (Except, of course, that
he is omniscient!)  Questions of "right or wrong" would simply not apply
to him (even if he DID comprehend ethics).  
He, therefore, is no more "good" or "evil" than the Law of
Gravitation; He simply _is_.  (And if you say that he created Jesus so
that he could learn ethics, then you're saying He's not omniscient.  Also,
what would he need to gain knowledge for?  He's immortal.  Immortal beings
have no need of knowledge.)

>	I don't want to knock God's existence.  I would like to be a believer. 

Why?

>Someone out there convience me that he's out there and that he does exist.

I'm afraid I can't do that, bud. :)


------------------------------------------------

Benjamin W. Lagow
Grad Res Asst, Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign