Skip to main content

Reply to "1. The Argument from Change"

Nope. So, Gary Downey didn't write it or cite the author? Is a pattern emerging? Where did Peter Kreft get it from?

As far as I can interpret it, the argument is completely illogical. I think it states that:
a. Everything in nature has a cause.
b. Everything in nature had an initial cause that was outside of nature.
c. Therefore, the supernatural cause to all natural causes, is conveniently, a god.

Three problems immediately come to mind:
1. He uses an unexplained conclusion (b) as a premise. (it's a special pleading)
2. Once something interacts with the natural it seizes to be supernatural.
3. If everything has a cause, what caused God?
3a. If the supernatural doesn't need causes, how do we know that?

I guess it can all be boiled down to: Peter Kreft/Gary Downey/etc. doesn't know how it all got started, therefore God did it! That's just not good enough.


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×