Proof of God: Argument from Efficient Causes

114 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chris McDearman's picture
Proof of God: Argument from Efficient Causes

Edit: This is an argument from St. Thomas Aquinas. I thought that was quite clear since I gave the name of the argument. I have several of Aquinas' five ways posted here. This is not plagiarism. You can clearly see me acknowledging Aquinas' ownership of these arguments in at least two of the comment threads. I'd also like to inform anyone who wishes to continue these discussions, that I'm shifting this to Skype. Text discussions are tedious and don't allow for the same level of understanding as an actual auditory conversation.

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).

8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

If you would like to discuss this with Christians, you're welcome to join our Skype group: https://join.skype.com/qiOeHUnpsm1A

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

chimp3's picture
Philosophy has never been an
Chris McDearman's picture
"Philosophy has never been an
chimp3's picture
Bull. Scientists no longer
Chris McDearman's picture
I'm sorry but that is just
chimp3's picture
Science now operates
Chris McDearman's picture
Excuse me but no one is
chimp3's picture
I am old and old school.
Chris McDearman's picture
We don't do loud noisy rooms.
chimp3's picture
I was not as!ing for advice
Chris McDearman's picture
So science is the only method
chimp3's picture
Philosophy makes simple
SauronOfAkkad's picture
You could argue that science
Chris McDearman's picture
Ok but what is knowledge?
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Chris McDearman's picture
It is an inductive method,
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Chris McDearman's picture
Well I don't know exactly how
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Chris McDearman's picture
I agree that reality has to
chimp3's picture
Radical : "My point is that,
Chris McDearman's picture
Atheists can have a basis for
ThePragmatic's picture
@ RadicalWiggery
Nyarlathotep's picture
5. Therefore if the first
radian123's picture
That's not an argument.
Chris McDearman's picture
If the first thing in a
Nyarlathotep's picture
consider the graph of the
Dave Matson's picture
RadicalWhiggery:
Chris McDearman's picture
It's an actual infinity and,
Nyarlathotep's picture
So is a line segment but

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.