WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:
You are changing the argument.
I'll repost it.
"1) Everything is caused and everything that causes is caused itself (these are contingent beings and events, who can cause and are caused).
2) These events of cause and effect happen in a chain (one is caused and causes further).
3) We can follow this chain backwards in time, since in the future, it goes on for eternity.
4) To start the chain, in the beginning, there must be a necessary being. One that causes but is naut caused itself.
5) This necessary being is necessary since if the chain could not begin with a contingent being or event (since it cannot cause itself)
6) This necessary being is God."
Premise 6 is not that there is a necessary being. Premise 6 is that the necessary being is god.
So if you're changing the argument, does that mean you accept that it is not valid in the form that you originally presented? And how are you defining god in this argument?
|
It means I didn't look at the previous post again.
Ditto but with 5 and 6.
|
Again, this imprecision is why you feel you are continually being misunderstood.
At any rate, what do you define as god, and why do I have to accept that if I accept there is a necessary being?