"Thats not proving that there is a God. thats simply making up a reason for something that we dont have answer for yet. Anyone can just make **** up. If your going to propose a theory for the origins of the universe, then do it, but you have to provide evidence. If you say there is a God, ok, then prove it."
--That IS the answer 'we don't have yet.'
"So then if there can'not be an effect without a cause, who/what created the creator?"
--I think you typed this before I answered it in the last post.
They don't prove anything. IN fact, its a pretty weak attempt at sophistry.
"You shouldnt use Aquinas, because his entire premis begins with the pre-suposition that God exists. He doesnt prove Gods existence anymore than Aristotle ever did. Furthermore, citing such good company doesn't make an argument."
--You have to start with the presupposition that God either does or doesn't exist. To say I shouldn't use Aquinas because of his presupposition is to be closed-minded when investigating the topic. You have to start somewhere. Also, you obviously haven't read much Aristotle (Metaphysics) or much Aquinas (Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles).
I'm not saying that because Aristotle or Aquinas said it, it's true. I was making sure I wasn't claiming those arguments to be my own.
