The Second Proof of God

[ding]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
   

 

[TheOldSchool]

Makes sense. There's a reason all the suns and worlds of the universe are shaped like meatballs, after all. 1st in the series.

 

[ding]

Logic isn't for everyone.

 

[Synthaholic]

Makes sense. There's a reason all the suns and worlds of the universe are shaped like meatballs, after all. 1st in the series.

He boiled for our sins!

 

[Synthaholic]

The Second Proof of God

2nd proof? Sounds like 80 proof to me.

Thank you folks, I’m here all night. Try the veal!

 

[bgrouse]

Logic isn't for everyone.

You proved that with your first post, that's for sure!

 

[Wuwei]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

 

[ding]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

 

[Montrovant]

If nothing else, you accomplished having me go look this up and find out it's from Thomas Aquinas, and also read some rebuttals to it.

One thing that struck me is that this second way leads to the conclusion that there must be at least one first cause. However, it allows for multiple first causes.

Here are a couple of the discussions I read about this:
https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/10100/LECTURES/3-second-way.pdf
Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

 

[edthecynic]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

 

[ding]

Logic isn't for everyone.

You proved that with your first post, that's for sure!

I get that a lot from militant atheists.

 

[OnePercenter]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

 

[jillian]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

there is no "proof" of G-d. there is only belief... that is why they call it "faith".

 

[ding]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

 

[jillian]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

it doesn't work that way.

 

[ding]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
   
   
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
   
   
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
   
   
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
   
   
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
   
   
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
   
   
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
   
   
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
   
   
9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

there is no "proof" of G-d. there is only belief... that is why they call it "faith".

Aquinas thought it was possible to use reason to prove the existence of God. I do too. I also believe we can use what he created as evidence for his existence. People pretty much have no excuse. Let those with eyes, see, and those with ears, hear.

 

[ding]

God can't be logically disproven that's the issue.

That would be the falsifiability principle.

So it would appear that it takes faith to believe in God and faith not to believe in God.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

So why did it exist in the first place? All events require a catalyst.

 

[edthecynic]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

You mean except through a quantum tunneling event into a false vacuum?

Sorry. Space and time had a definitive beginning. It was 14 billion years ago or so. Maybe you heard about it.

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed therefore no beginning or end, you may have heard of it, the PROVEN First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[edthecynic]

9. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

A physicist would call it the Big Bang.

The first cause would be before the creation of space and time.

It has been proven with a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore energy has no first cause.

So why did it exist in the first place? All events require a catalyst.

Energy is a thing, not an "event."