I think you are confusing the cosmological argument for something else. A brief google search will show that the cosmological argument does in fact argue that "God" (perhaps more specifically, some "demiurge") exists. It is not merely "definitive."
Both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas gave forms of the cosmological argument that were attempts at demonstrating (i.e., proving) God's existence. For example, Thomas Aquinas states this clearly in Summa Theologica q. 2 a.3, which you can read free online. Also, many Christians think that these arguments successfully demonstrate the existence of God (up until a few years ago, I thought so too, so it is not a trap debate at all).
I feel like about 70% or so of all the atheist arguments on debate sites are all actually from one person (with, like, 100 accounts).
I've seen them all so many times--which isn't to say they're wrong, of course, just a little bland.
Do you include societal factors which apply more to certain races than others? E.g., Nigerians and Somalis are both African, but in general immigrants may perform very differently in (say) US economy because of their varying societies, rather than their race. (For the sake of example; I don't know if that's precisely accurate.)
I'm hesitant to accept this debate because I don't really know anything about the argument your making.
I (similarly) think free will is basically the capacity for evil. But without it, the world would be brute: for whatever a thing was designed, so it shall behave. There would be nothing worthy of exaltation in a world like that.
I am from DDO, I had no idea about this site.
-
That was the impression of Aquinas I was under until very recently. In some of his writings, the regress Aquinas talks of is not temporal. He thought that for every physical thing, something had to be acting on it to keep in in existence, analogous to the earth resting upon the turtle, resting upon the turtle, etc. I like this argument more because it is not one that depends of abstracting into a inconceivable, but it is something that can be applied in the present. The down side is that, at least for me, it is not at all clear why physical things would just drop out of existence without being influenced by some immaterial force. A lot of evidence is required for this idea, which I think is why the five ways are often simplified beyond clarity or accuracy.
-
Though, I admit I may be wrong about this. I probably ought to read a book or two on it before debating it.
I think pro's anti-Kalam cosmological argument is quite good; I have never seen something comparable. As I understand it, Aquinas also rejected the Kalam argument (under whatever name it had in 1200).
I did find the subsequent arguments less convincing, however.
I think you are confusing the cosmological argument for something else. A brief google search will show that the cosmological argument does in fact argue that "God" (perhaps more specifically, some "demiurge") exists. It is not merely "definitive."
To clarify what "Cosmological Argument" refers to, I updated the debate description. The section I added is in between asterisks.
Both Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas gave forms of the cosmological argument that were attempts at demonstrating (i.e., proving) God's existence. For example, Thomas Aquinas states this clearly in Summa Theologica q. 2 a.3, which you can read free online. Also, many Christians think that these arguments successfully demonstrate the existence of God (up until a few years ago, I thought so too, so it is not a trap debate at all).
I feel like about 70% or so of all the atheist arguments on debate sites are all actually from one person (with, like, 100 accounts).
I've seen them all so many times--which isn't to say they're wrong, of course, just a little bland.
Do you include societal factors which apply more to certain races than others? E.g., Nigerians and Somalis are both African, but in general immigrants may perform very differently in (say) US economy because of their varying societies, rather than their race. (For the sake of example; I don't know if that's precisely accurate.)
I'm hesitant to accept this debate because I don't really know anything about the argument your making.
I'll take a pass on that one.
I think this debate was poorly named. The debate title and your resolution seem like two very different statements to me.
I (similarly) think free will is basically the capacity for evil. But without it, the world would be brute: for whatever a thing was designed, so it shall behave. There would be nothing worthy of exaltation in a world like that.
I am from DDO, I had no idea about this site.
-
That was the impression of Aquinas I was under until very recently. In some of his writings, the regress Aquinas talks of is not temporal. He thought that for every physical thing, something had to be acting on it to keep in in existence, analogous to the earth resting upon the turtle, resting upon the turtle, etc. I like this argument more because it is not one that depends of abstracting into a inconceivable, but it is something that can be applied in the present. The down side is that, at least for me, it is not at all clear why physical things would just drop out of existence without being influenced by some immaterial force. A lot of evidence is required for this idea, which I think is why the five ways are often simplified beyond clarity or accuracy.
-
Though, I admit I may be wrong about this. I probably ought to read a book or two on it before debating it.
I think pro's anti-Kalam cosmological argument is quite good; I have never seen something comparable. As I understand it, Aquinas also rejected the Kalam argument (under whatever name it had in 1200).
I did find the subsequent arguments less convincing, however.