I recently explored the Cosmological Argument of St. John of Damascus (or what I would now call the “Damascene Ontological Argument”) and have realized something in the argument that needs clarification, namely, how could God remain unchanged in light of the Incarnation? (Much thanks to my friend Vic and commenter CK for bringing this problem … Continue reading
For those unfamiliar with philosophical terms, “cosmological” simply means “an explanation of the beginning.” So to say something is a “cosmological argument” merely means, “It’s an argument about why everything exists.” I have been reading bits and pieces of St. John of Damascus’ book The Orthodox Faith. I’m currently re-working my way through Peter Kreeft’s … Continue reading
I received a reply. Here is my response to the reply I received: Issue 7 – Does God need “special pleading” to avoid the arguments against naturalism? Me: It is necessarily true that in any universe where matter decays it must also have a beginning. Thus, even if we say there was something prior to … Continue reading
I hadn’t intended on making this into a series, but I received an email from an atheist concerning my previous post. So I am putting up his arguments to my arguments and then supplying my defense. Here was my response: Issue 1 – Kalam Cosmological Argument Me: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. … Continue reading
Considering the overwhelming evidence we have for the Big Bang…wouldn’t such a belief nullify any possible theories in naturalistic evolution? Especially if we apply it to the kalam cosmological argument: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. If we combine this … Continue reading
