rainbow walking

rw: "If X is a kind of individual, according to Axiom 1 there is a sum or aggregate of kind X's meaning you have multiple necessary causes."


Hello again Philip,
Everyone having had their say and you being busy responding I thought I’d wait until the dust settled to continue critiquing your argument. In as much as you were kind enough, (and honest enough) to provide a brief introduction:

Thus providing sufficient background to substantiate, and render invalid your response above, to my initial observation of Axiom 1,(at least in your case).

The Christian theological definition of God includes the Triune god meaning father, Son and Holy Ghost.

As I said in my initial response:

: "If X is a kind of individual, according to Axiom 1 there is a sum or aggregate of kind X's meaning you have multiple necessary causes."

Even though you qualified your argument thusly:

The argument does not establish that this first cause is all-perfect, personal, etc.

You left your big toe in the door with this:

However, it does, if correct, establish the key theistic doctrine of there being the creator of the cosmos.

And this:

A few introductory remarks: I'm a Christian,

So I re-iterate that you have multiplied necessary causes in the aggregate. Which of the persons of the trinity is actually necessary and non-contingent? The Father, Son or the Holy Ghost?

Philip Osborne

If the argument doesn't demonstrate that the first cause is personal, intelligent, etc., it isn't going to establish the doctrine of the Trinity. One important qualification is that the Bible does not, to my knowledge, teach Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit as being the creators of the universe; it does not mention them as being involved in the creation act. Perhaps the whole of the Trinity is necessary; in any case, the argument neither proves nor disproves the existence of multiple necessary beings.

Sincerely,

Philip

rainbow walking

rw: Yabut, as you said:

However, it does, if correct, establish the key theistic doctrine of there being the creator of the cosmos.



it goes towards demonstrating that the INTENT is to work towards a conclusion more complex than the initial argument sets out to achieve and is implied in both your introduction and your closing statements so you cannot extricate yourself from that so easily. Essentially this cosmological argument is one premise working towards a more complex hypothesis.

Philip: One important qualification is that the Bible does not, to my knowledge, teach Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit as being the creators of the universe; it does not mention them as being involved in the creation act.


Genesis 1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:26  ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

John 1:1  ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2  The same was in the beginning with God.
3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

I think you are mistaken about what the bible teaches in this area.

So I reiterate...you have multiplied necessary causes in the aggregate. Which of the persons of the trinity is actually necessary and non-contingent? The Father, Son or the Holy Ghost?


Thank you, Philip, for your cooperation in resolving this question.

rainbow walking

Well, I suppose, the resolution to this lttle glitch in Philip's argument shall remain forever un-resolved. (sigh)

Philip Osborne

"it goes towards demonstrating that the INTENT is to work towards a conclusion more complex than the initial argument...."

As I said before, any theistic argument must be part of a global case for theism.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

I'm not convinced that this passage makes specific reference to the Holy Spirit; it does not necessarily indicate that the Spirit of God is something seperate from God himself.

"God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:"

It's not clear in this passage that God is speaking to the other members of the Trinity. There is a possible interpretation that God was speaking to the rest of His creation.

"...you have multiplied necessary causes in the aggregate. Which of the persons of the trinity is actually necessary and non-contingent? The Father, Son or the Holy Ghost?"

According to Christian doctrine, the Son and the Holy Ghost were not created, so presumably they too are non-contingent, along with the Father. The argument does not prove their existence is necessary; it is not inconsistent with this thesis either. By committing ourselves to the necessary existence of one member of the trinity, we do not therefore preclude the possibility that the other members of the trinity are also necessary existents.

Sorry for the delay in the response.

Sincerely,

Philip

rainbow walking

Rw: Hi Philip,
Sorry for drawing false conclusions from my impatience.

Rw: Thank you for that concession.

Rw: There are numerous scriptures which designate God’s spirit as Holy.

Rw: Do you find this interpretation satisfying? The rest of creation prior to man would be the flora and fauna and all other sundry accoutrements that were likely non-sentient. Taking this interpretation literally would depict God as talking to himself. In as much as Christianity derives its very being from the doctrine of the Trinity, thus allowing Jesus the status of God, I have seen many apologists refer to this particular text to support that doctrine.

Rw: Then you are not erecting an argument to support a monotheistic theism.

Philip Osborne

Rw: Do you find this interpretation satisfying? The rest of creation prior to man would be the flora and fauna and all other sundry accoutrements that were...."

If my interpretation is incorrect, that would be a significant theological victory for Christianity. As I mentioned before, however, the question of how many necessary beings exist is not definitively answered by my argument. It supports the existence of one, but provides no evidential support either for or against other such beings.

Sincerely,

Philip

rainbow walking

O'kay Philip, it was never my intention to engulf you in a theological dispute over the apologetics of the trinity anyway, only to demonstrate for your benefit that Axiom 1 effectively closes the door to your using this argument as a premise in the building of a more complex argument for the existence of the Christian god. Keep your thoughts flowing and your mind will find its way.