: Can't believe this never came up before, since it is the "popular" approach to explaining the necessity of God's existence.Actually, it first came up in the first section of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. It's been discussed a number of times here.
: The universe cannot cause itself.
This is an unprovable axiom and the basic flaw in the argument; we cannot know if the Universe can cause itself or not; in fact it has been observed that particle-antiparticle pairs generate spontaneously in space; the Universe could be merely a larger version of this event.
Causality is subjective and unproven; it's an assumption you can stake a lot on, but it breaks down at the fundamental level. Why do you believe effect follows cause?
Induction, pure and simple; a=b yesterday, so it is likely that a=b today.
: Nothing comes from nothing.
Actually untrue; see above about particle/antiparticle pairs.
: The universe is not an effect in an infinite cause/effect series.
Eh? This would make the Universe a cause itself; a self-creating Universe, if you will, unless you maintain that there is an Ultimate Cause.
: Therefore the universe must be caused by a first, uncaused cause.
But the axioms on which this argument are so full of holes as to be air-conditioned; thus the entire conclusion is logically suspect.
Theology has moved on since 1273 (thankfully; or it would be too easy to refute!).
: Hence the Unmoved Mover, or God.
For any value of "God".
(there's also my own pet objection; in trying to use logic to justify God, you are trying to apply logic to something that is fundamentally non-logical; in order to accept any logical argument for God, you have to start from the initial assumption that God exists; which is circular.
To cite a passage from a digest of the Summa Theologica:
"It must be born in mind, then, that within the philosophical sciences the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them. They leave that task to a superior science. The supreme philosophical science, metaphysics, can dispute against someone who denies its premises only if the adversary will concede something. If he concedes nothing, then debate is impossible, although it may still be possible to show that the adversary's argument is invalid.Thus sacred scripture, having no superior, can debate with one who denies its premises only if the adversary concedes some part of divine revelation. In this way we debate with heretics on the basis of sacred doctrine, using one article which they accept to support another which they deny. If the adversary believes nothing of what is revealed in sacred doctrine, then there is no way left to prove the articles of faith through reason. It is still possible to refute arguments advanced against the faith, however. Since the faith rests upon infallible truth and it is impossible to prove what is contrary to truth, it is clear that arguments against the faith are not really proofs and can be refuted.
See?
(not Holy, no)
Gideon.
None.
