By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 11 September 2018
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
JWeinCom said:

It's not due to the nature of this discussion, it's due to you not double checking the argument.

According to your profile, you're from Belgium and I'm not gonna go that far for a beer.  If you don't want to have the conversation here, I obviously am not going to force you.  But if you insist the argument is valid, then I'd need to know how you get from necessary being to god, and what god is.

I'm going to wind up the discussion anyhow, as I'm growing tired of it here. But I'll humor you.

Simply put, what being would be able to cause it's own existance, along being eternal and immovable? Aquinas here jumps from a necessary being to God. A fair point is that the deductive Cosmological argument ends at the necessary being, then a second abductive reasoning is made towards God.

The cosmological argument does not end at necessary being.  It ends at god.  That was your conclusion.  If that conclusion is not completely justified by the premises, and only the premises, your argument is not valid.